Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Tuesday 18 July.

ALLIANCE & LEICESTER GROUP TREASURY PLC(TRANSFER) BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 18 July.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Rail Services (North-West)

Mr. Tony Lloyd: What recent discussions he has had with Virgin Trains on the rail service to Manchester and the north-west. [128400]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): It is the franchising director's responsibility to monitor the two franchises that Virgin Trains holds: west coast main line and cross country. He is in regular contact with Virgin Trains about all its services, including those to Manchester and the north-west.

Mr. Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the travelling public in the north-west, served by Virgin Trains, hold the strong view that the standard of that service is appalling? It is not punctual often enough; it is shoddy and shabby; and, more importantly, is it very over-priced. Can he get the message across to Virgin Trains that we do not want to live for ever on promises from it? Can he scotch the rumours about delays in upgrading the west coast main line? As he is well aware, it is important to invest in that infrastructure so that we can have a world-class train service on the west coast and up to Scotland.

Mr. Prescott: I am well aware of the complaints made about the services of Virgin Trains; I travel by train quite often and passengers come up to me and make that point very clearly. The company's target was that services should arrive within 10 minutes of the expected time and about 80.6 per cent. of services achieved it. The service has improved by 8 per cent., but that is a pretty miserable record. To be fair, the desperate need for investment in the west coast line has to be taken into account. We faced problems in that Railtrack and Virgin reached an agreement on the cost of modernisation, which they estimated to be about £2.3 billion; the figure is now £5.2 billion. That two private companies can produce such different estimates does not make it easy to modernise the west coast line. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall ensure that the modern standard of line that has been guaranteed is delivered. He knows that the Director General of Fair Trading and the regulator are questioning Virgin Trains about fares.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I fully endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd). Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that, unless more trains arrive in accordance with the timetable—thus reducing the lateness that is so typical of the north-west line—the transfer of people from road to rail will not be achieved? Does he also agree that a town such as Macclesfield deserves a modern railway station as it is one of the major profit centres for Virgin in the north-west? Will he press Virgin, Railtrack and all those involved to make the necessary investment in the station and the track as well?

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the reliability record is far worse than under public ownership, but I make it clear that investment is still the critical factor. I have already referred to the major miscalculation of the resources needed to modernise that line. The regulator is investigating, with Virgin and Railtrack, the cost of that operation. I hope that there will be a statement shortly, especially on Railtrack's contribution, and that we can get on with modernising the line. The Strategic Rail Authority is very much involved. There is an important difference between the previous Administration's approach under privatisation and ours; we are trying to bring back public interest in the management of our railways.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Although I do not condone the performance of Virgin or Railtrack, the upgrading has started—we have waited many years for it—and the new tilting trains have been ordered, for which my right hon. Friend should take some credit. I have received a briefing from Railtrack today, and it seems to be getting its act together, but does he not agree that it is a great shame that all the track-laying equipment—and other heavy equipment—used to modernise our railways has been built abroad? Will he consider ways in which to help British manufacturers to get involved in those contracts?

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend is right. We are already seeing an increase in the number of people travelling by rail, even on Virgin. There has been an increase of about 17 per cent. on average in rail passenger numbers since May 1997. The improvements that we are making and our


commitment to the long term are important contributory factors in that. My concern about the manufacturing of rolling stock goes back to when we were in opposition. The problem is that no one was prepared to make a commitment to the long-term planning of the rail industry. We are now correcting that and, with our announcement on the 10-year transport plan, we will give a future to the long-term development of the railways and transport in this country.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the Deputy Prime Minister at least acknowledge that the west coast main line upgrade has started and that the money is being provided by the privatised rail industry—money that he would never have been able to obtain from the Treasury? In comparison, as we approach the general election, why are we still waiting for Labour's so-called transport plan to be announced, let alone started? What have the Government been doing for the past three years? As they feed the press, day after day, with speculation about £50 billion, £80 billion, £140 billion or £160 billion, will he reflect on his own words about what people really think? Did not he say, "They think, 'Isn't this spinning and spinning is about lying'"?

Mr. Prescott: In 18 years of a Tory Administration, we had a decline in the use of the public transport service and disinvestment on a massive scale, but in three years, this Government have produced their first White Paper, the first piece of—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!] If the Opposition had thought a hit more about what they were doing, they would not have ended up in a mess. We have a White Paper, legislation and a major announcement of long-term investment in transport. That is why people now have faith in the development of an integrated transport system.

Portland

Mr. Ian Bruce: If he will make a statement on the progress of the South West of England regional development agency in letting the former HMS Osprey site on Portland. [128401]

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The South West of England regional development agency is developing a framework plan for the former Royal Naval air station on Portland and a public consultation exhibition seeking local views was held at the end of June. I understand that the hon. Gentleman met the deputy chairman of the RDA yesterday to discuss development of the site.

Mr. Bruce: I thank the right hon. Lady for that answer, but she will know that three years ago, the South Dorset economic partnership was dealing with the former Ministry of Defence sites very effectively. However, there is no permanent tenant on the site as yet and I am told by the South West of England RDA that dealing with other Government agencies—namely the MOD and the Crown Estate—is the problem. It also tells me that it is being held up by a consultation over flooding with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Can she please make sure that Ministers take a personal interest in

the matter to cut through the problem and get some of the so-called joined-up government that we hear so much about?

Ms Armstrong: I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that the RDA is getting on with the job. It took responsibility for the site from 30 March and has already got a public consultation up and running. Although he was unable to attend the exhibition, he has seen the plans, which are working well, so he knows that there is a site of special scientific interest within the site. Obviously, we have to deal with that properly and undertake proper consultation, but I can assure him that the RDA, with our backing, is doing all that it can to make sure that proper and appropriate development takes place on the site.

Rural Economy

Dr. George Turner: What plans his Department has to encourage the economic development of rural economies. [128402]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The regional development agencies, established in April 1999, have all drawn up regional economic strategies, which fully recognise the needs of rural as well as urban areas. In pursuing rural development, they have at their direct disposal the £29 million rural programme and round 5 single regeneration budget funds, which included some £70 million to be spent on rural areas.

Dr. Turner: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will know that the rural group of Labour MPs has recently published a manifesto. Although we acknowledge that the Government have done much and are doing much, there is a lot still to be done. Can he tell us today when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be able to publish the rural White Paper, for which we are waiting? Can he commit the Government to ensuring that the White Paper represents an action plan to address problems in rural areas? In particular, will he assure the House that changes will be made to the planning regime to ensure that it helps to achieve the diversification that so many of our farmers need if they are to secure a reasonable income?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is right to say that the manifesto produced by many of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches is an extremely good document by any standards. We expect to publish the rural White Paper in the autumn. It will take account of my hon. Friends' proposals, and it will be a wide-ranging, practical and ambitious paper covering the whole range of rural services : regeneration, access to services, new directions for agriculture, social exclusion, rural empowerment, conservation and recreation, and rural proofing.
My hon. Friend asked a particular question about diversification. We are well aware of that problem, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning recently held a seminar on the issue. We recognise the


need for farmers to diversify their businesses beyond agricultural operations, and we have issued national guidance to assist farm-based diversification.

Mr. Don Foster: If the Minister is so committed to the regeneration of rural economies, why are so many of the Government's initiatives on regeneration massively underspent? Is he aware that the single regeneration budget has been underspent by £45 million since 1997, that the European regional development fund has been underspent by £0.25 billion since 1994, and that the Minister's wonderful new scheme, the new deal for communities, spent only 2 per cent. of its budget in 1998–99 and less than half last year? Does he accept that, as a result of the massive mountain of bureaucracy and the Government's failure to co-ordinate these initiatives, rural economies have been offered a feast but are getting a famine? Will he at least publish details of those underspends and the reasons for them, and take action to stop them?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. We are aware of underspend, but we are working with local communities precisely to increase their capacity to utilise those funds. He has ignored the fact that the actual spend on countryside programmes will increase in the current three-year period from £128 million in 1998–99 to a projected £174 million by 2001–02, which is an increase of almost 40 per cent. In addition, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced the rural development plan, which includes a 60 per cent. increase to £1.6 billion and a degree of modulation for expenditure on the countryside. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman, in making a fair point, did not acknowledge the huge increase in expenditure that is now going into the countryside.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Given that a good, well-maintained water supply is vital to any regeneration in rural communities, has my right hon. Friend had time to study the Kelda proposals to sell Yorkshire Water back to its users? It seems blatantly to be trying to foist its debt on to my constituents and others in Yorkshire. Does he agree that there should be a public inquiry into this so-called sell-off, and that the managers, who have been incompetent and greedy over the years, should be held to account? They have put us all in danger by mismanaging a vital resource.

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend raises the important issue of the Kelda proposals for Yorkshire Water. This is primarily a matter for the Director General of Water Services, whose approval is required before such proposals can proceed. He issued a consultation paper, which has not quite run its course—I think that the process ends on 17 July. Ministers do not have a direct responsibility in this area, but I have overriding responsibilities to ensure public health and to meet environmental obligations. I am expecting to see the Director General of Water Services later this week to discuss this very issue.

Mr. James Paice: Given that agriculture, which is the major industry in rural areas, has experienced a 70 per cent. decline in income under the Government, that 400 post offices closed last year and

many more expect to close in the coming weeks and months, and that the Royal Mail has decided to stop delivering post by private vehicle, which will detract from the service provided to countless rural businesses, how can the Government take any credit for any development in rural areas? [Interruption.] If the question is about—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised a question, but because of the noise, it has not been heard. Will the hon. Gentleman begin again at "How will the Government"? I at least heard him.

Mr. Paice: I will willingly repeat my question, Madam Speaker.
How, in responding to a question about encouraging the development of rural economies, can the Government take any credit for what has been going on in real rural areas over the last three years? If that is what happens when they encourage rural development, what would happen if they discouraged it?

Mr. Meacher: I must say that I cannot but admire the brass neck of representatives of the Tory party who talk of the state of the countryside and rural areas, after the rundown of virtually every kind of service throughout the last two decades. By 1997, buses did not go to many villages. There has been a decline in the number of doctors' surgeries, and schools have closed.
The hon. Gentleman may be thinking particularly of the decline in agricultural incomes, which is unquestionably very severe—probably the worst for half a century or more. However, it preceded the present Government, and it has gained pace under the present Government for much wider international reasons. We are trying to deal with it; the Prime Minister held an agriculture summit, which was extremely well received by the farming community.
I repeat that we are putting more money and more services into rural areas in an attempt to regenerate them after the collapse that occurred in so many villages. The hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that.

Regional Development Agencies

Mr. Ken Purchase: What contribution the regional development agencies are making to the development of regional economies. [128403]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The RDAs are emerging as strategic drivers of economic development in their regions. They have had an excellent first year, putting £400 million into regenerating the most deprived areas and creating or saving some 35,000 jobs—including 5,000 new jobs in the west midlands.

Mr. Purchase: My right hon. Friend played an important role in ensuring that RDAs were at the heart of Labour's economic motor in the regions. I pay tribute to what he did well before we were in government. Does he accept that the competitive agenda for the global economy as it applies to the regions is best driven along by further decentralisation to the RDAs, to improve their powers? Does he agree that the more quickly their lines of


accountability can be developed, the sooner they will be able to take more control of national budgets, and thus bring about decentralisation from this place to the regions?

Mr. Prescott: I have always believed that the RDAs can play a major part in reducing disparities of economic growth within and between the regions, and in the record level of inward investment that Britain has just achieved. To that extent, I believe that the RDAs should be given more influence—and, indeed, more resources—so that they can get on with their job.
In my hon. Friend's area, the RDAs have played a significant part in regard to the Rover taskforce, which had a special job to do in diversifying the economy and at the same time encouraging new investment by, for instance, Marconi. I believe that they are already a success following their first 12 months in operation, and that the spending review will show just how important we think their future is.

Mr. Archie Norman: Has the Deputy Prime Minister seen House of Commons Library research which suggests that the Government have abused the boards of the RDAs by packing them with Labour supporters and cronies? Can he confirm that RDA membership contains six times as many Labour supporters as Conservatives, and that 70 per cent. of all board members with known affiliations are Labour supporters or trade unionists? Is not the real truth that the Deputy Prime Minister has used the RDAs to extend the culture of cronyism, rewarding his friends in failed Labour councils with well-paid positions on regional quangos?

Mr. Prescott: The evidence does not show that. Clearly, we believe that the RDAs properly reflect industrial interests as well as local authority and political representation in the region. About 100 Tory councillors are involved in the regional chambers alone. About four Tory members are involved in the boards of the eight regional development agencies. The Tories did not get many votes in the last election. It was in all the papers. Did the hon. Gentleman not read it? The number is proportional to that.
We believe that the regional development agencies should be retained. Even the Tory councillors are asking us to ensure that we keep the RDAs. If Conservative Members feel so strongly about abolishing them in England, why are they leaving them in Scotland and Wales? Why should the English regions be denied the possibility of keeping RDAs?

Mr. Norman: Can the Deputy Prime Minister now confirm that the RDAs are costing £17 million in administration alone, while spending on the ground on urban regeneration has gone down compared with spending under the previous Government? Does he agree with last week's report by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, which described regional intervention under the present Government as confused and badly co-ordinated?
Is not the real truth that the only thing that has gone up under the Deputy Prime Minister is spending on advertising in his Department, which has doubled; spending on spin doctors—there are up to 40 in the

DETR, up 20 per cent. on last year; and spending on bureaucracy, on cronyism and on trips abroad? It is Britain's inner cities that are paying the price.

Mr. Prescott: I think that the House generally agrees that the interventions of the hon. Gentleman, whether in speeches or at Question Time, can lead only to the certainty that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) will shortly replace him on the Conservative Front Bench. As for the investment of £10 million, I have already informed the House that £400 million in regeneration and 35,000 jobs have been secured by the active intervention of the regional development agencies. On its own, that is a justification for the investment, but, since we introduced development agencies in Scotland, it has seen an improvement: it went from having the seventh highest GDP in the United Kingdom in 1986 to the fourth highest. That shows the success of the development agencies in Scotland and Wales. Why does the hon. Gentleman want to deny that for the English regions, or is it just a promise made in opposition to be changed in government?

Mr. Richard Burden: My right hon. Friend has mentioned the work of the Rover taskforce and of Advantage West Midlands, the regional development agency there, in the economic strategy for the west midlands. Does he agree that, to deliver that economic strategy, it is vital that there is a transport infrastructure, particularly in an industrial heartland such as the west midlands, which is a major trade route from south-east to north-west and beyond
Given the fact that, between 1992 and 1999, capital investment in public transport in the west midlands was only 5 per cent. of that in the capital, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we get much more investment into our road infrastructure, our rail infrastructure and public transport in the west midlands area?

Mr. Prescott: I readily accept that there is a strong connection between the two: investment in the infrastructure and the level of economic prosperity in the regions. The RDAs are playing a part. They produced their regional plan within the first year. We are changing our planning mechanism to allow them to influence the regional transport planning structure. We must await the spending review to see how much we are prepared to put into transport.

Brown Trout

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What proposals he has to combat the effects of acid rain on the brown trout population; and if he will make a statement. [128404]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): Government measures to reduce acidifying emissions include the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Gothenburg protocol, the


proposed national emission ceilings directive, the proposed amendment to the large combustion plant directive and the sulphur content of liquid fuel directive.

Mr. Llwyd: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I know that he is something of an expert in environmental matters and has a great track record in that area, but may I urge upon him the need to move quickly with regard to intrinsic stocks of brown trout? They are dwindling now. May I suggest that the Environment Agency's remit be extended, so that a full audit is prepared and it can then look at ways of combating the present trend?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point on a matter that we are very concerned about. I am glad to say that, as a result of the string of directives that I read out, United Kingdom emissions of sulphur dioxide—which is the main cause of acid rain—have decreased by 57 per cent. compared with 1990 levels, and are expected to decrease by 84 per cent. by 2010. However, I understand that further action is needed.
I believe that liming—which I understand to be the practice of treating acidified waters with calcium oxide—is proving very successful. The latest evidence shows that the river Tywi—which is in south-west Wales, and was almost fishless in 1990—has had an increase of about 600 adult salmon and 2,500 adult sea trout returning to the river each year. However, we shall keep a very close eye on the issue and take account of the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: When considering work to improve the environment, will my right hon. Friend have a word with his colleague the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about promoting research and development and a private finance initiative in clean coal technology—which will help not only to improve the environment, but to secure jobs within both the electricity generating industry and the mining industry?

Mr. Meacher: Yes, I certainly shall. Although my hon. Friend's question is fairly wide of the main question, I am very happy to have such discussions with my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. I think that clean coal technology is indeed very interesting. It is not yet commercially viable, but it has the potential of achieving continued and high levels of coal production in a manner that minimises the impact on the environment. We are certainly keen to see further research done, both in the private sector and in the public sector, to secure that technology.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Does the Minister accept that the greatest impetus to a healthy brown trout population is the existence of fishing? Is not the reason why so many Labour Members are enthusiastic supporters of the practice of fishing the fact that fishing is good for conservation? However, if that is true, why do not the same arguments apply to the co-existence of a healthy fox population and hunting?

Mr. Meacher: That is a very good try. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity, but I am afraid that there is no analogy between the two issues.

Transport Infrastructure

Gillian Merron: What progress regional development agencies are making in developing transport infrastructure in the regions. [128406]

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The RDAs are expected to work within the regional transport strategies, which are key parts of the regional planning guidance. The RDAs are making a significant input into those strategies, and will also be invited to comment on the forthcoming 10-year plan for transport.

Gillian Merron: Bearing in mind the inextricable link between economic development, prosperity and transport—which is why my constituents so welcomed the Government's commitment to dualling the A46, and the fact that work on that will commence next year—can the Minister say what action she will be taking to ensure that regional development agencies are able to inform and support the development of much-needed train links to places such as Lincoln? Such a link would enable my constituency not only to be drawn more fully into the regional and national rail transport system, but to benefit more fully from economic opportunity.

Ms Armstrong: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the very constructive role that she has played in establishing the Lincoln rail forum. We would expect that the regional development agency would work closely with the local authority and with the franchise director, who operates within guidance issued by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on the provision of rail services within Great Britain. The guidance requires the franchise director to maintain effective liaison with the RDAs. It is, therefore, linking the national, regional and local imperative that will allow us to develop rail services across the country that really meet local people's aspirations while fitting into a national programme.

Mr. Tim Loughton: That all sounds very fine, but where in the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 does it make any mention of transport as a responsibility of RDAs? Is not that something that RDAs have complained about? Is it not also symptomatic of the widespread confusion about the role of RDAs and their relationship with Government, which has been criticised by the Government-appointed RDA board members as follows:
too many overlapping national and regional bureaucracies, confused delivery systems…too many joins in joined up…a system full of treacle…disjointed, contradictory and very complex…?
At the crisis meeting in Birmingham last month, the Deputy Prime Minister promised new tools to pursue a wider leadership role for RDAs. Apart from the sacking of the chief executive of the west midlands RDA—Advantage West Midlands—just a week later, what exactly did the Deputy Prime Minister mean?

Ms Armstrong: Everyone else in the House recognises that for economic development it is vital to have an effective transport infrastructure. Therefore any organisation that is considering economic development will of course liaise with the organisations responsible for the transport infrastructure. That is precisely what is happening and what RDAs are participating in, and why they meet regularly with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport.
As for the second part of the question, the meeting with RDA chairs in Birmingham was to discuss with them the way in which funding will be allocated and developed in the future, and their role in the future. They warmly welcomed the Government's paper and produced a response to it last week. We will publish our views after the spending review next week.

Mr. David Taylor: Given that the East Midlands development agency was recently very positive about the regenerative potential of the Ivanhoe rail line through north-west Leicestershire and south Derbyshire, is my right hon. Friend confident that next week's comprehensive spending review will free sufficient resources to back such local projects and improvements to the rail infrastructure? Will she encourage one of her colleagues to receive a delegation from Leicestershire, including local Members of Parliament, to discuss the finance potential for that project?

Ms Armstrong: I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport is always happy to meet Members of Parliament to discuss their commitment to developing local transport initiatives. The recent local transport plans demonstrated the Government's commitment to building up local transport that will make a real difference to local people, both in terms of economic development opportunities and more effective public transport. I am sure that those factors will be taken into account in the spending review for the next three years.

Brownfield Development

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What proportion of houses in England has been built on brownfield sites in the last three years. [128407]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The latest year for which estimates are available is 1997—the last year of the previous Administration. In the three years to 1997, 56 per cent. of new dwellings were built on previously developed land or provided by converting existing buildings.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am glad that the Deputy Prime Minister has chosen to answer this question himself. Does he recall saying that the green belt was a great Labour achievement and we should build on it? Would it not be a better achievement if we stopped the present rate of building on greenbelt and greenfield sites and gave

developers some real incentives to build on brownfield sites, so that we could meet the Government's target of 60 per cent?

Mr. Prescott: The area of greenbelt land has increased by 2 per cent. under this Government. In the last four or five years of the previous Administration, it did not increase at all. It might have been useful for the hon. Gentleman to consider the implications of the 56 per cent. development on brownfield sites. That means that 44 per cent. of development under the previous Administration was on greenfield sites.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have been extremely successful in getting some regeneration into inner-city areas, mainly on brownfield sites? Is he aware that there is now a major problem with the European Union's refusal to let us continue with gap funding? Can my right hon. Friend say something helpful to ensure that developers can carry out redevelopment of brownfield sites and existing buildings in our inner cities to continue that urban renaissance?

Mr. Prescott: I very much agree not only with what my hon. Friend says, but with what the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, of which he is a Chairman, has been pointing out to us—namely, that we should increase the amount of building on brownfield sites. I gave a commitment to the House to increase building on such sites to 60 per cent. by 2008 and we will stand by that commitment. I am not sure what the Opposition's commitment is—it has changed five times in five years. The previous Administration stated that it would be 50 per cent. in their housing White Paper of 1995; their household growth Green Paper said 60 per cent.; at the election they said 60 per cent.; the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said 70 per cent. in October 1997 and 66 per cent. in January 1998; and by March 2000 it was 70 per cent. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell the House which figure they are picking ready for the election.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Is it not the case that under this Government the proportion of new development on brownfield sites is falling and that there is no prospect in the real world of the Government hitting even their own targets? Is it any wonder that the Secretary of State is poised to ignore the democratic voice of the south-east regional planning committee and permit large tracts of the south-east to be concreted over?

Mr. Prescott: I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not give us the latest version of the percentage figure that the Opposition accept at present. He is wrong to suggest that the proportion of new development on such sites is falling. I said that in the last year for which figures are available—1997—it was 56 per cent. and the figure for the two previous years was 56 per cent. That is exactly where we are at the moment. To be fair, it fell in only one year, which was 1997—I should have said that it was 55 per cent. then, not 56 per cent. Our target means that we have to increase it by 0.5 per cent. a year. It is a tough target, but we have already spelled out to the House


how we intend to do it: with the land database, the urban report by Lord Rogers and other things that make it clear that the change to the sequential testing means that one has to show that one is building on a brownfield site before there is any agreement for a greenfield site.

Humber Bridge

9. Shona McIsaac: If he will make a statement on tolls for the Humber bridge [128408]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): The Humber bridge board, which owns the bridge, is responsible for its operation and its finances, and for proposing any changes in the tolls to be charged. The Secretary of State has responsibility for determining applications to revise tolls solely according to certain statutory criteria.

Shona McIsaac: While I welcome some of the action that the Government have taken to assist the board to restructure the debt on the bridge, does my hon. Friend agree that Europe's plans to impose value added tax on tolls will have a devastating effect on the communities north and south of the Humber? If that is to happen, I suggest that he does one of two things: restructure the debt again so that there is no increase in the tolls, or wipe it out completely.

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend takes a keen interest in these matters on behalf of her constituents. She has acknowledged that the Government have made considerable progress in finding a solution to the debt problem of the Humber bridge.
On VAT on tolls, I must enter the usual caveat that that is a matter for the Chancellor and the Paymaster General. Having said that, the position, as my hon. Friend said, is that we await the European Court's judgment. As she knows, the United Kingdom has staunchly opposed the Commission's view that tolls involve a business activity and should be taxable at the standard rate. We take the view that tolling is an exempt activity of a public body in pursuit of a statutory obligation. I can make no further commitment with regard to restructuring the debt. Naturally, we hope that our view will prevail in Europe. If the tolls of all tolled undertakings had to rise to take account of VAT, it would not be right to mitigate the effect of VAT by subsidy for the Humber bridge alone.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Perhaps we can revisit this matter when the European Court has given its ruling.
Does the Minister agree that the proposed £1 toll on the Millennium bridge is too high? What would be the impact of VAT on that toll?

Madam Speaker: Order. We are on the Humber bridge at the moment and I know where that is—it is nowhere near that other bridge.

Tenant Initiatives

Dr. Alan Whitehead: If he will make a statement on the progress of initiatives to give tenants a greater role in running their own estates. [128409]

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The introduction of best value in housing and of tenant participation compacts from 1 April 2000 should ensure that tenants have more influence over the way in which their homes are managed. We will be monitoring whether local authorities have introduced compacts, and their performance on tenant participation generally, through this year's annual housing investment programme assessment process. We have also recently commissioned research to monitor how best value in housing and compacts are being introduced and developed. The initial findings will be available next year.

Dr. Whitehead: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He is undoubtedly aware that a number of large housing estates are run by housing associations, sometimes after large-scale voluntary transfer. Will he encourage such associations to follow the lead of those such as the Swaythling housing society in Southampton in introducing programmes of tenant participation and tenant management on their estates, so that the benefits of the programme that he outlined can be extended to other estates?

Mr. Raynsford: I very much agree with the approach described by my hon. Friend, and can confirm that the Government are working closely with the Housing Corporation so that the introduction of best value in respect of local authorities and tenant participation compacts is mirrored by measures taken by housing associations to ensure that they adopt best value principles and that they fully involve their tenants in an appropriate participation framework.

Mr. John Bercow: Which three steps would most empower tenants?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman asks which three steps would most empower tenants, but, if he had read our housing Green Paper, published in April, he would know that the measures that we are taking to give tenants greater choice, greater opportunity in respect of lettings policy and fairer rent structures will all give tenants a far greater say and involvement in their housing. That will lead to greater tenant satisfaction.

Drinking Water

Jane Griffiths: If he will make a statement on the outcome of the water quality consultation on regulations for drinking water. [128410]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The consultation period for proposed new regulations on drinking water quality closed on Friday 30 June, and almost 350 responses were received by that date.
The 10th annual report of the drinking water inspectorate, which will be published tomorrow, shows a welcome further improvement in water quality, and reports that water companies are well placed to meet the quality improvements required by the new regulations.

Jane Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply.
No one likes furry kettles, so will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituent, Mrs. Sandy Campbell and her company, SC Softeners? Given that the regulations under consultation appear to propose a more stringent regime than the EU regulations on which they were based, will he give my constituent some assurance that she can continue to contribute to water softening and improved water quality under the new regime?

Mr. Meacher: I certainly can give that assurance. My hon. Friend is right: under the new EC directive, we had the option to reduce controls on sodium or artificially softened water. On the advice of the Department of Health, we opted not to do so. The reason for that is the concern that when sodium is used in conjunction with infant formula, it should be safe for babies to drink without putting them at risk of the condition, infant hypernatraemia.
A problem has arisen because of an orchestrated campaign of misinformation: people, who may include my hon. Friend's constituent, have been told that they will have to blend their softened water with hard water in order to achieve the desired result. That is not true. The regulations will have no impact on them whatever.
Officials from the Department of Health are meeting representatives of British Water—because they have the greatest concerns about the matter—further to discuss the regulations.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister consider carefully the provisions under any new draft directives emanating from Brussels on the quality of drinking water? Is he aware of estimates showing that 50 per cent. of previous EU directives have not dealt with aspects of health and safety, but were entirely to do with the colour and taste of water? It can thus fairly be said that this country has spent hundreds of millions—if not billions—of pounds on meeting unnecessary standards.

Mr. Meacher: Of course the hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the health and safety of drinking water is absolutely at a premium, but I believe that he understates how important it is that all householders should receive water that is not unpleasant to taste or discoloured. Some 300 or 400 incidents a year are reported. I believe that, as we shall learn tomorrow, the number is gradually decreasing, but it is a matter of serious concern. It is true that, partly as a result of the investments that began under the previous Government but which we have extended substantially, the quality of drinking water in this country is second to none—as good as it is anywhere in the continent, and I would say considerably better than that of bottled water.

Local Deprivation

Ms Karen Buck: If he will publish the underlying data used to compile the proposed index of local deprivation. [128411]

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Last December we published for consultation the information relating to local authority district rankings on five different measures of deprivation. As part of the consultation exercise we also offered each authority information on the ward scores and rankings for their area. I am today arranging for the updated ward scores and rankings to be sent to each authority for information. The summary report will be published later this year along with the deprivation scores and rankings of all wards and districts in England. The report will provide details of where to obtain, subject to any confidentiality constraints, the underlying raw data.

Ms Buck: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that reply. She will be aware of the concern that exists in some London boroughs about the possible implications for the index. I wonder whether she will allow a period of formal consultation following the publication of the data that she has announced today, to allow authorities to respond on the basis of that new information. Will deprived wards or ward clusters that fall outside the new index of local deprivation priority rank be able to access Government funding streams targeted at certain deprived areas?

Ms Armstrong: The work is a research project which has been carried out for the Department and for the Government by Oxford university. It provides considerable new information. We are now using 33 different factors to give us better information about wards. That information has been shared with authorities over the past six months. The formal consultation finished earlier this year and additional work has been taking place to refine that.
We shall ensure that, before the index is used to allocate money, it takes account of the fact that we are in a changing position, and therefore we would of course institute transitional arrangements if and when we do proceed. This is a very difficult issue. No statistics tell the whole story. None of us trusts statistics wholly. However, we want to ensure that we obtain the best information available, so that local authorities know where deprivation is occurring and where they should target their money in order to tackle that deprivation.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Does the Minister accept that if her local deprivation index takes into account access or lack of access to a local sub-post office, it is set to show increasing deprivation because of the Government's cancellation of £400 million of revenues going to sub-post offices? Can she further confirm that the so-called guarantee against closures of sub-post offices will be completely worthless, because the fine print shows that the Government will still allow them to close if they cannot find anyone willing to run them because they have rendered them unprofitable?

Ms Armstrong: I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the right hon. Gentleman his answer some questions ago: that under the present Government there has been a concerted effort to improve access to services for people, wherever they live. The index and the work that I mentioned, as well as other work through the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal, will enable us better to ensure that people, wherever they live, have access to the services that they need, including post offices. The statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a couple of weeks ago demonstrates that the Government will follow through that commitment, and that support for rural post offices—and post offices in urban areas that have been struggling—will now be much more secure than it ever was under the regime of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley).

Affordable Housing

Mr. Simon Hughes: If he will revise planning guidance to allow local authorities to require that all housing developments in their area include at least 50 per cent. of homes at affordable cost for members of their local community. [128412]

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Planning policy guidance note 3 "Housing" and circular 6/98 "Planning and Affordable Housing" recognise a community's need for affordable housing as a material planning consideration, and allow local authorities to require an appropriate percentage of such housing on suitable sites, where a local need exists. We have no plans at present to revise the guidance.

Mr. Hughes: That is an unsatisfactory answer. I have not seen the minutes of the policy forum in Exeter, but would the Labour party like to think about a slightly radical policy for the next general election? Would it like to allow local councils, which at present are able only to have housing built to meet demand, not need—expensive homes rather than affordable homes—to decide that up to 50 per cent. of the properties in any housing development should be affordable? Can we have homes for people on lower incomes rather than big profits for property developers?

Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman bothered to look at reality rather than producing soundbites, he would realise that that is possible under the existing guidance that he ridiculed. The London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham has recently agreed a major new private development with a 50 per cent. element of affordable housing. If it can do it in London, so can other authorities. The hon. Gentleman, who represents a London constituency, should check his facts in future before mouthing soundbites.

Ms Claire Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that the increasing demand for affordable housing is making it difficult in Hertfordshire, and especially in my
constituency, to recruit teachers, nurses and many other public sector or lower-paid employees to work? What advice and hope can he give to those communities that the Government will introduce measures to assist local councils and housing associations to provide affordable accommodation and thereby ensure that we can fill those important jobs within the public sector?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. She will know that in the housing Green Paper that we published two months ago, we set out a number of proposals for tackling precisely those needs. Those proposals include the starter home initiative, which is designed to help precisely the categories that she mentions—teachers and nurses—who need accommodation to enable them to work in the area in which they live. She will also be aware of our concern to introduce more effective measures to ensure a good supply of affordable housing provided through both the Housing Corporation-funded programme and planning agreements such as the one to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. Desmond Swayne: But why are the Government building fewer affordable houses than the previous Government? Surely if the previous Government could do it, this Government ought to be able to do it.

Mr. Raynsford: Before the hon. Gentleman asks such a question, he ought to do a bit of homework. He would then know that the programme that we inherited from the previous Government involved a dramatic and damaging decline year on year—1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997. We have stopped the decline. We have guaranteed the funding for the Housing Corporation. The hon. Gentleman will obviously have to wait until after the spending review to see plans for the future.

Green Belt

Mr. James Clappison: What plans he has to give additional protection to the green belt. [128413]

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The Government remain firmly committed to the protection of green belts. Planning policy guidance note 2 contains a presumption against inappropriate development in designated green belts.

Mr. Clappison: Earlier the Secretary of State spoke about obtaining more information about brownfield sites, but is he aware that in authorities such as Hertsmere, the planners have already done their homework and, in that borough as in many others in the south-east of England, there are precious few brownfield sites left in the sense of previously developed sites, let alone derelict or damaged sites? Is he aware that the greater the housing targets required of boroughs, the greater the incursion will be into the green belt, at the expense of the countryside, the environment and quality of life? Will he consider real


policies to strengthen the green belt, rather than concreting over huge swaths of countryside, and will he listen to the views of Serplan?

Mr. Raynsford: As a former Minister in the Department that we have succeeded, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the very considerable range of policy development that has taken place in the three years since we took over responsibility from him and his

colleagues. He will know about PPG3; he will know about the sequential approach; and he will know about the proposals on increasing densities. They are all designed to ensure that we make better use of brownfield sites, that we provide for the housing needs of our country and that we do so while taking no more greenfield land than would otherwise have been required. That is practical, sensible politics, designed to balance a responsible attitude to the environment with a responsible attitude towards meeting housing needs.

Type 45 Destroyers

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the procurement of the first type 45 destroyers.
The strategic defence review set out the Government's firm commitment to a modern and effective destroyer and frigate force for the Royal Navy, including substantial investment in new ships.
I am pleased to be able to announce today that we have decided to procure the first type 45 destroyers, part of a planned class of up to 12 ships. The type 45s will be the largest and most powerful air defence destroyers ever ordered for the Royal Navy.
Subject to the satisfactory completion of negotiations, a contract will be placed later this year with BAE Systems for the construction of the first three of these ships, and certain large items such as the propulsion plant for a further three, at a total cost of about £1 billion. The first ship will enter operational service in 2007. 1 expect a contract for the second batch of ships to be placed in about 2004.
These ships represent a huge improvement in capability over the type 42 destroyers that they will replace. Their key weapon system will be the highly advanced and capable principal anti-air missile system—PAAMS—already being procured in collaboration with France and Italy.
The type 45s equipped with PAAMS will defend other ships against the most dangerous supersonic sea-skimming missiles as well as enemy aircraft. In this role, the type 45 will protect a wide range of our maritime assets, from aircraft carriers to logistics vessels. In addition, the type 45 will be a highly potent, multi-role platform capable of operations across the spectrum of tasks from peace support to high-intensity warfare.
The design will be capable of evolutionary improvement over the life of the class, through an incremental acquisition plan—a key feature of smart procurement. Its size, at about 7,200 tonnes, will ensure that space is available to allow for both additional and enhanced capabilities to meet this plan.
Our procurement strategy for the build phase has been developed with the maximum participation of the prime contractor, in line with smart procurement principles. This has allowed a rapid recovery following the demise last year of the tri-national Horizon programme—a programme which had been running since 1994 to meet the Navy's need for a new area air defence ship. Under the control of the prime contractor, a single design definition is being developed involving the two shipbuilders, Vosper Thornycroft and BAE Systems Marine, in a risk-sharing design team. This means that from the outset we have a design that can be efficiently constructed by either company.
Our intention to place a first-build contract for three ships is a further break from the traditional way of contracting for destroyers and frigates. Previously we would have ordered only a single first of class. This approach means better, cheaper procurement.
Our approach in this programme will ensure that experience in type 45 construction is spread between BAE Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft. That will assist future competition for follow-on ships.
Radical modular construction techniques will also assist competition. We will invite bids from both traditional shipyards and from wider industry for the manufacture of modules. These might be a section of the ship from keel to main deck, with equipment and systems already installed.
This method of construction represents a revolution for warship building in this country. Although it has been successfully employed in the commercial shipbuilding sector and overseas, we have never before used it for Royal Navy ships. It will permit more efficient construction of the warships and provide a basis for effective competition from a wider industrial base.
Provided that satisfactory arrangements can be agreed between the prime contractor and the two shipbuilders, we intend that the first and third ships will be assembled by BAE Systems Marine and the second ship by Vosper Thornycroft. Both companies will be able to compete independently for the assembly of batches of follow-on ships.
The type 45 programme will sustain up to 3,000 jobs directly in the shipyards over the next 10 years, and it will sustain or create almost as many elsewhere in the defence industry. It is part of the largest programme of warship construction in this country since the second world war. The first of class is expected to be launched from the BAE Systems Marine Scotstoun yard on the Clyde. I understand that Vosper Thornycroft is examining the possibility of building type 45s at Portsmouth as an alternative to Woolston.
Finally, I am pleased to announce that the class is to be named the D class. Her Majesty the Queen has graciously agreed to the first of class being named HMS Daring, and the second HMS Dauntless. This revives two famous names that have served the Royal Navy well since the early 1800s. As the seventh ship to bear the name, Daring's most recent predecessors were destroyers from 1932 to 1940 and from 1952 to 1974. It will be the sixth time that the name Dauntless has been used; the last warship of that name was a cruiser from 1918 to 1946.
Today's announcement clearly demonstrates the Government's commitment to maintaining the shipbuilding industry in this country, and our determination to procure military equipment faster, more cheaply and better than we have in the past. It is good news for Britain and Britain's shipbuilding industry, and it is good news for the Royal Navy. I commend these proposals to the House.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I start by thanking the Secretary of State for his courtesy in passing the statement to me reasonably early, so that I would be able to respond.
I unequivocally welcome the announcement of the order for the two ships and I congratulate the yards that have been successful in obtaining the orders. Although I welcome the statement, it is worth pointing out—only in passing, of course—that this is the first warship order to be placed by this Government in the past three years. It is good news, but the Secretary of State needs to assure the House that older ships in need of refit will not be paid off early over the next few years as a result of the order. I would like him to make that point unequivocally at the Dispatch Box.
The Secretary of State also referred to the nature of the contract, and said that the design had been produced by two companies that subsequently bid for the contract. Will


he tell us how he will balance that fact with the competition element, if yards such as Swan cannot bid because they do not have access to commercially sensitive information? How will he deal with that matter, and maintain a competitive environment?
Today's announcement of the type 45 is in many senses tied up with the roll on/roll off ferry order, which is not, it appears, going to Govan. Will the Secretary of State remove any doubt and tell us whether that order will go to British yards, or is he preparing to let it go overseas? Is he using this announcement as a smokescreen to try to make that sound like good news at this moment?
The Secretary of State referred to the air defence system, but then moved quickly on to other matters. Why was he so coy about all the other systems? An order has been placed for the ships' hulls, but the key question relates to the fact that their capability will depend wholly on the systems used. Therefore, I have a few questions about the systems, which I hope that he will answer.
On Merlin, will the Secretary of State dispel the doubts that have appeared in the press? Will he confirm that the type 45 will be able to carry, and will carry, Merlin helicopters, and that the landing systems on the ships will be designed to carry them? Otherwise, the capabilities of the ships will be much reduced.
Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the ships will receive the very best and latest design of command and control, and that they will not be hamstrung by costs so that they have to accept a lesser system, as has been reported and leaked by the Navy?
Will the ships have surface-to-surface guided weapons capability, and if so, will he tell us which one that will be? Will they have a good close-in weapons system—or is it, as reported, unlikely that they will get one at all?
The launchers will be critical and the Secretary of State referred briefly to them in connection to PAAMS. However, is it the case that the ships will not be able to fire tactical Tomahawks using the launchers because the launchers are not capable of accommodating tactical Tomahawk or Tomahawk as it exists today? Will that not limit their capacity to operate in the environment that the Secretary of State described?
The Secretary of State's strategic defence review rightly said that our troops are likely to be at risk in future from ballistic missiles in theatre. Will these ships have any anti-ballistic missile capability to deal with that, or is the Secretary of State planning to design in any capacity, as referred to in his own SDR? Will he assure the House that the Sylver launcher will be adapted to make such flexibility available, and tell us what the cost of that will be? What is his response to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Defence that such flexibility should be incorporated?
We have heard reports that either the sonar capability will be very limited or there will be none at all, certainly in coastal waters. Is it not a reality that more and more potential aggressors whom we might face are investing money in the coastal capability of submarines? Will the Secretary of State clarify the position, as without either a Merlin or such coastal capability, does this ship not become vulnerable to attack?
The Secretary of State said that the ship would be designed on commercial lines. Will he explain the Navy's attitude to that in relation to the protection of the ship?

What lessons have been learned on damage control, especially from the Falklands, and can those be implemented? Will sacrifices on damage control issues be made for commercial reasons?
In conclusion, we welcome today's statement about the order for ships, which we have been urging the Government to make for some time. However, serious questions remain about the systems. The ships alone are not good enough, as they rely on the systems to operate properly. This weekend, the comments of a naval officer were leaked in the press. He said that if the ships do not get the best systems, it will be a case of
cut price ships for a cut price Navy.
In short, is this going to be a first-rate Royal Navy ship—or a Treasury ship?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, at least for his opening remarks and his conclusion. I am not quite sure about what he said in between, and I shall try to deal with that in due course.
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman, or any Conservative Back Bencher, is in a position to criticise too much the fact that we have made this announcement today. I mentioned the date that the Horizon programme started, and I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman might just have noticed that that was during the Conservative Administration. The programme failed—and frankly, one reason for the delay in making the announcement is the fact that we had to deal with the failure of the previous Government. We have managed to turn that failure around with the outstanding success that we are announcing today. The hon. Gentleman does not have much ground for complaint. If there were delays, they were the creation of the Government whom he supported.
As for competition with other yards, the idea underlying the use of modules is partly that we can extend the opportunity for constructing parts of these ships to yards other than the two that I mentioned. Equally, clearly we can involve those who are not necessarily shipbuilders, either historically or traditionally, which will be good for competition and for British industry, as it will diversify the necessary skills and ensure that others are involved in the process. There will be real opportunities for the shipyard that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, as well as other shipyards—and, indeed, those who, perhaps, have not previously seen themselves as in the business of making ships.
I see no connection whatever between that and the order for ro-ro ferries. The total of this order already amounts to some £1 billion. I assure the hon. Gentleman, as I do the House, that the Government are not in the business of spending £1 billion of taxpayers' money as a smokescreen. This is a vital capability required for the Royal Navy, and is long overdue as a result of the failure of the previous Government to organise procurement effectively.
The hon. Gentleman asked detailed questions about systems. I shall simply back his concluding point, as he is right to say that it is vital that we rely on the systems to make sure that these ships operate effectively. In the past the Royal Navy, like navies throughout the world, has had the problem that the technology moves on much more quickly than does the ability, for example, to build a ship.
That also applies more generally to procurement of high-technology equipment. Central to the way in which the ships are to be designed is the fact that they will be capable of adjustment as the technology changes and develops. In response to the hon. Gentleman's points about Merlin, command and control, surface-to-surface guided weapons, close-control weapon systems and tactical Tomahawk, there will be an ability to deploy each of those weapons, should they be appropriate when the ships enter service in 2007. We shall be able to consider the strategic situation in the years leading up to 2007.
Let me make it clear that the ship's design and development is firmly in the hands of the Royal Navy, which is advising Ministers about the decisions that are made. The Navy is happy not only with the particular decisions made about these ships, but with the sophisticated range of warship building on which the Government have embarked, so I see no cause for concern. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Merlin?"]
This will be a very different approach from that taken in the past, when technology has overtaken the vehicle carrying the various systems. Instead, we will be able to adjust. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Merlin?"] Opposition Members keep repeating the word "Merlin". I have made it clear that it will be possible to use Merlin from the ship, if necessary. Those judgments will have to be made in light of the circumstances closer to the in-service date of 2007.

Mr. Syd Rapson: I welcome the statement, especially as it places contracts with British shipyards. Of particular interest to me is the possibility—and it is only a possibility—of shipbuilding returning to Portsmouth, whether in my constituency at Vosper Thornycroft or in the dockyard in the constituency of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). We would both support that. I hope that the statement does not undermine Vosper in the competition process, or with regard to the company's capacity for ship repair. We will look into that later, but I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement and the welcome possibility of shipbuilding returning to Portsmouth.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to use the word "possibility"; ultimately, a commercial decision will be made by Vosper Thornycroft, but I understand that it is considering the matter carefully.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: It would be churlish not to welcome the placing of this order—and, in particular, not to recognise the innovative approach being adopted for design, with the involvement of BAE and Vosper at that stage. Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the advantages of the design will be to provide a higher standard of accommodation for all ranks who serve on the ship?
I respectfully say to the right hon. Gentleman that he rather pushed aside the question of the roll on/roll off ferries, and there is no doubt that there is considerable anxiety about that order. I hope that he will be able to tell the House that he expects to make an announcement about the Government's position very soon.
Should not we recognise the fact that there has been some trade-off between cost and capability because of funding constraints? The Secretary of State does not have

to take my word for that; he can accept the conclusions of Jane's Defence Weekly, which said that the type 45 would enter service without some desired capabilities, several of which were referred to by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who speaks for the official Opposition. Is not the real question the extent to which the overall capability of the vessel will be affected if it goes into service without them? What assessment have the Government made of its ability to fulfil the likely tasks that will be imposed on it in the foreseeable future without the particular capabilities that have already been drawn to the Secretary of State's attention?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's observations. He is right to say that one of the advantages of the new designs is significantly to improve accommodation for those who work on board the ship. I know that he had to raise the question of ro-ros, but I am at a loss as to why that is considered relevant to today's statement. [Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends suggests that for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, every cloud has a silver—[Laughter.] Perhaps I will forget about that, but it was a good joke the way my hon. Friend told it to me.
As for cost and capability, we have to recognise that there are limitless capabilities that can be incorporated into any given ship. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned some, and the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) mentioned others. It is always necessary to make an assessment of what we want any given ship to do. The Royal Navy is entirely happy—indeed, pleased—about the prospect that this ship, whose primary function will be defensive, against an attack from the air, will have a full range of equipment for that purpose. In addition, there will be opportunities for adjusting and enhancing that capability in future. That is built into the design. As I have said, the danger, otherwise, is that we design a ship for today's technology, knowing that it cannot enter service until 2007, as this one will. The reality is that technology and the strategic situation will have changed by then, and we shall not have the opportunity of making adjustments to the design. The design of the ship allows for changes and enhancements as we go along; that must be a smart way of dealing with the problem of a changing strategic environment.

Mr. Frank Field: Is the Secretary of State aware that as he was preparing his statement, Cammell Laird was declaring record profits, output and employment growth? Does it puzzle my right hon. Friend as much as it puzzles me that this premier group of yards, which wins its orders from a worldwide market, finds it so difficult to fight its way through the public procurement procedure? If he is as puzzled as I am, will he ponder on that before he makes his next group of announcements, to which I look forward?

Mr. Hoon: Certainly, as I made clear, there will be the opportunity for other yards to bid for the modules for the construction of the third ship and for subsequent ships, bearing in mind the fact that we have made an announcement in relation to the first three of a planned


class of 12. Clearly there will be opportunities for other yards, including Cammell Laird, to participate in what will be an exciting programme.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Is it smart procurement to make the statement months before a contract will be placed?

Mr. Hoon: The issue for the House is to be informed of the Government's intentions as soon as those intentions become clear. We have done that. Had we delayed, we would have been criticised for delaying. We are giving the House as much information as we can as early as we can.

Mr. George Galloway: Please forgive me, Madam Speaker, for appearing before you improperly dressed. I had not expected this statement to be made today.
Will the Secretary of State accept from me that this is wonderful news for the Clyde, for Glasgow and for the hard pressed economy of west central Scotland? It is especially gratifying that the first of class of the new type 45s, which I hope will never have to be used in anger, will go down the slipway of the first-class Yarrow shipbuilders in Scotstoun in my constituency, where the work force is grieving the untimely death, at a very young age, of the shop stewards' convener, Stewart Crawford? In a dark week for the work force, my right hon. Friend's announcement will come as great news.
Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that it is "dauntless", even "daring", for us to have an unexpected visit from the three Scottish National party Members? If they had their way, made England a foreign country and broke up the United Kingdom, none of those ships and none of those jobs would be coming to Scotland.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is certainly good news for Glasgow, for the Clyde and for the United Kingdom, whose Royal Navy is ordering these ships.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is it not ironic that the most Europhile Secretary of State for Defence that we have had for a long time should be announcing, in essence, a national programme to fulfil an area of our defence requirement for the Royal Navy that could not be fulfilled either by the NFR 90 or by the Horizon project collaborative European programmes before it?
Is there not a risk that the type 42s will have to continue for an inordinately long time—longer than anticipated—at an extra cost to the Exchequer, as estimated by the National Audit Office, of £537 million? Furthermore, is there not a risk that the principal anti-air missile system, which is in essence a Franco-Italian ASTER missile system, could be late, with a further augmentation to cost and a further deficiency in the overall capability of an already under-equipped ship?

Mr. Hoon: As I made clear to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench on defence, we

are making the announcement today because of the failure of a joint programme entered into by the Conservative Government whom the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)—sometimes—supported. We had to pick up the pieces from that failure. I made it clear that the reality of modern warfare for a modern Royal Navy is its involvement in sophisticated joint projects. The defence systems that will be employed will be joint projects involving France and Italy. Sophisticated collaborative projects are inevitable in the modern world, and we need to ensure that the Royal Navy is equipped with the very best and latest technology.

Mr. Ian Davidson: May I tell the Secretary of State clearly and unequivocally what a wonderful man he is for announcing the order, which will create and safeguard so many jobs on Clydeside? May I say how much I, and my constituents south of the Clyde, welcome the way in which the ships will be built? That will mean work going to Govan shipyard, as well as to Yarrow. May I ask him, however, about the engines of the ships? Will the Rolls-Royce WR21 engine be selected in due course? As he is probably aware, a number of export orders depend on whether that engine gains credibility by powering the vessel. Finally, although modesty precludes my suggesting any name for the D class, should my own be suggested, I would not resist its use.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations, although he will forgive me for saying that I have not been used—lately, at any rate—to enjoying such enthusiasm on the part of my hon. Friends north of the border. No decisions have yet been taken about the engines. A fiercely competitive commercial contract is on offer for them. Rolls-Royce is certainly one of the bidders, and I am sure that it will submit an extremely competitive and effective tender. As for my hon. Friend's final observation, I shall have to investigate with my naval historians whether there has ever been an HMS Davidson—although there is a first time for everything.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I am delighted that the Secretary of State has made the announcement today, and I am sure that everyone in Portsmouth is delighted at the prospect of a return to shipbuilding at its naval base. That will happen only if Fleet Support Ltd. co-operates—and, more importantly, if the Ministry of Defence makes facilities available to Vosper in the naval base and dockyard area. I hope that there will be no impediment in the way of that. I am also grateful for the Secretary of State's comment about module development. I hope that if it is not possible to build the ships in Portsmouth dockyard, the MOD will try to secure Vosper's support at least for the building of some of the modules there.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's constructive approach. I made it clear that ultimately, Vosper Thornycroft must decide on the opportunity. Its facilities in Southampton will certainly be made available for the modular construction process that we anticipate, providing benefits across the country. Instead of the benefits of such a contract being located in a particular


yard or two, as has historically been the case, there is an opportunity for the whole of the UK's shipbuilding industry to benefit.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: May I express my delight at the announcement that the second of class will be built on the south coast by Vosper Thornycroft—a shipyard with a proud record of building first-class vessels for the British Navy over many years? Naturally, my personal inclination would be towards ensuring that it was built at Woolston. Bearing in mind what my right hon. Friend has said about the possibility of the work going to Portsmouth, will he assure me that any decisions will be reached purely on commercial considerations, and that the requirement, were production to be transferred, for Vosper to use a Royal Navy dockyard, will not receive any additional consideration other than that of commercial best practice?

Mr. Hoon: I certainly understand my hon. Friend's concern. I have always emphasised the importance of the commercial considerations that will effect any decision taken by Vosper Thornycroft. Whatever decision it takes on the precise location, I am confident that it will continue to require the very considerable skills of the work force in and around Southampton, which have been built up over many years and will still be required to complete such a contract—as well as future warship orders that the Government will be making in due course.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: As an ex-shipwright—the only one in the House, I think—I am always delighted to hear news of vessels being built in our yards. I only hope that Cammell Laird and other yards will secure orders in the future. I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive my greed, but I want to see the four ro-ro vessels built on the upper Clyde, by my constituents. I think that I am right in saying that I have more constituents in those yards than any of my hon. Friends. It may not be within my right hon. Friend's gift, but I would be grateful if he would ask BAE to ensure that when workers are recruited to Scotstoun and Govan, they are given decent terms of engagement, not short-term contracts. If the work is there, craftsmen and others should be given security of tenure.

Mr. Hoon: It was only on 6 July that we received the revised bids relating to the ro-ro ferry order. A great deal of detailed work has already gone into an assessment of those bids, and a lot of work was done over the weekend to give us an idea of how they were shaping. More work will still have to be done, but I will certainly try to ensure that the House is given as early a warning as possible of the likely outcome of the bids.

Mr. David Davis: There is much to welcome in the Secretary of State's announcement today, but may I ask him how he will deal with one potential problem? Recurrent in naval systems is the problem of matching—interface. That has led to cost and performance problems over many years, and it is clearly a potential issue with the type 45 and the PAAMS. How will the Secretary of State deal with that, given that there are two separate contracts, one under English law and one under French law?

Mr. Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue. We have been concerned about it, because of

previous problems that have arisen with closed IT architecture systems. Specifically, for all the reasons that I hope I have set out to the House already, the IT systems need to be capable of being enhanced and developed, and must also able to respond to brand-new systems that may still be in the process of being thought up, never mind designed. Central to our approach is the idea that the IT systems on board the ships will involve an open architecture, and will be capable of being enhanced and of interfacing with new systems dependent, using a completely different approach. Built into the heart of the radar systems is the ability to interface with new, and, I hope, developing technology.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the announcement made by the Secretary of State today, on behalf of the Royal Navy and the British shipbuilding industry. I recently welcomed to my constituency HMS Somerset and HMS Quorn, and I hope that I am still around when the first type 45 can be invited to call in to the port of Larne. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether the radical modular construction technique will extend competition so far as to enable Harland and Wolff to compete, and perhaps even provide an opportunity for Short Brothers?

Mr. Hoon: As I made clear in my statement, and in answer to a number of members of the shipbuilding trade union in the House, it is important that the approach is seen as an opportunity not just for a single successful shipyard, or two successful shipyards, but for all those engaged in shipbuilding, and certainly those in Northern Ireland, to participate in a highly competitive process. The challenge is there for British shipbuilding. If there are British shipbuilders that are competitive and capable of offering bids that win the day, there is work available, and we will be delighted to receive the orders from Northern Ireland, just as much as from any other part of the United Kingdom.

Dr. David Clark: I very much welcome this afternoon's announcement, which is the first of the largest warship orders for many decades. It is good news for Scotland and the south coast of England. My right hon. Friend placed great emphasis on the need to maintain a strong shipbuilding capability. Does he know that only three years ago, 14,000 people worked in river-related jobs on the River Tyne, but that fewer than 1,000 people now work in such jobs? In view of my right hon. Friend's emphasis on commercialisation, will he explain the way in which a shipbuilding company such as Swan Hunter can participate in the order when it is up against its prime competitors, BAE and Vosper Thornycroft?

Mr. Hoon: The way in which the competition is organised is specifically designed to allow not only for competition between the two companies that I have mentioned, but to ensure that those companies make sure that others have the opportunity of participating, especially in the construction of the modules. Many hon. Members know far more about the history of British shipbuilding than I. However, specific shipyards have depended too often on particular orders for their survival. Indicating that the first three ships are part of a planned class of 12 provides an opportunity for some yards to plan


for the future. The benefit of such planning for the taxpayer and the Government is that we anticipate that it will reduce the yards' costs, and thus the cost to the British taxpayer. It will also allow the yards to plan ahead, and not be dependent on the single order approach that has done so much damage to British shipbuilding in the past.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I welcome the announcement, and pass over the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway)—which owed more to the state of mind of the Scottish Labour party than to the order.
The first and third warships will be assembled by BAE Systems. The Secretary of State said that the first warship would be launched at Yarrow. Where will the third vessel be launched? On modular construction, will the Secretary of State outline a typical percentage that may be contracted out from the launching yard under the arrangement?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) had a point when he contrasted the policy, which I assume that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) supports, of taking Scotland out of the United Kingdom, with applauding an order placed on behalf of the United Kingdom Government. The hon. Gentleman is being a little uncharitable to my hon. Friend, who used his powerful and logical mind to expose the dishonesty that the hon. Gentleman appears to want to avoid mentioning. However, in view of the hon. Gentleman's generosity, I shall not make too much of that.
If the third ship is to be assembled on the Clyde, it follows that it will be launched from there.

Mr. Tony Worthington: The news that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

has announced today is welcome to my constituents who work in Govan and Yarrow. He will know BAE Systems' view that, were it to obtain the order for ro-ro ferries, the preparatory work would reduce the price of the ships that we are discussing. Would that not be smart procurement?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is tempting me to put together two different orders for which there are different sets of criteria. The previous Government approached the matter in a similar way. Ro-ro ferries have a commercial requirement, which contrasts with the military requirement for the warships. I have made the Government's position on ro-ro ferries clear. I shall try to make an early announcement.

Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Quentin Davies. [Interruption.] Mr. Davies?

Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the Secretary of State finally come clean on the question that he has studiously avoided until now—the Merlin? It is not a future weapons system; it is coming into service now. Contrary to expectation, the platform on the type 45s does not specify taking the Merlin. Why not?

Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) had to be disturbed.
I have already said that the platform will be capable of taking the Merlin. Judgments will be made nearer the in-service date about the equipment that will be required on the platform to take the Merlin. It is sensible to approach such matters in that way, rather than to design a ship today, knowing that the in-service date is 2007 and that the technology is likely to change. We are preserving flexibility in the design and the equipment that will be available—precisely to avoid the problems that we and the previous Government faced because ships were designed knowing that the technology would be significantly different when they came into service.

Points of Order

Dr. Liam Fox: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you can clarify a point that has arisen as a result of a reply to an answer given at 3.30 this afternoon on the publication of the Treasury report, "Review of Ill Health Retirement in the Public Sector". The reply states that the present levels of retirement on the grounds of ill health in the public sector are higher than necessary, at 22,000. However, a letter from the Secretary of State pursuant to an answer given in the House on 4 July in relation to consultants states:
The Department of Health does not collect data on the number of early retirements.
The Treasury is either using old NHS data or excluding NHS employees from its figures, making nonsense of the report. Or perhaps figures exist of which the Secretary of State for Health either is or is not aware. In either case, the Government will have a lot of explaining to do. Have you, Madam Speaker, had any request from the Treasury or the Department of Health to make a statement to establish which version of the truth we are supposed to accept?

Madam Speaker: I have not heard that any Department is seeking to make such a statement. There is no basis for the hon. Gentleman's point of order; it is a matter of disagreement, and as such, he should pursue it with the relevant Minister by means of the Order Paper.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been lucky enough to be given sight of a letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) received from the Secretary of State for Defence. It was placed on the letter board before the statement at 3.30. I notice that one or two other hon. Members have also had the privilege of receiving that letter—the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) is holding a copy. Is it in order for the Ministry of Defence to place letters containing the details of a statement on the board for Members before the statement is made, or for that to be done at the time of the statement?

Madam Speaker: It is a matter for the Minister concerned if he wishes to communicate with colleagues, wherever they may be. I have been a Member for a very long time under several Governments, and Ministers have always corresponded with colleagues about statements, so there has been no departure. If the hon. Gentleman has more information, perhaps he will give it to me.

European Single Currency (Referendum)

Mr. John Maples: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a referendum on 28th September 2000 to decide whether the United Kingdom should join the European Single Currency.
It has become commonplace to say that this is the most important political issue that our generation will have to decide, but it is. I have been a firm opponent of Britain joining the European single currency for a long time, but I raise the issue today because I believe that there is significant confusion at the top of the Government which makes an early decision on the issue vital if Britain's interests are to be pursued. I also believe that in this debate the argument should be conducted honestly and openly, not by the chicanery, scaremongering and leaks that we have seen in the past few weeks.
The events of the past few weeks have added confusion to uncertainly. It looks as if there is a conspiracy, involving at least four senior Ministers, to speed Britain's entry into the European single currency. Three Cabinet Ministers and another senior Minister have been sounding the drum for early entry. They have been spreading scare stories in the press and leaking internal documents from their Departments. They arrogantly lecture the rest of us on what is good for business, but would any of us take business advice from them? Apart from the fact that one of them spent a few years working for the late Robert Maxwell—one of the great crooks of the 20th century—they have never between them made a single investment, created a single job or run a single business.
A few weeks ago in the debate on European affairs, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor humiliated the Foreign Secretary by forcing him not to deliver some of the warm remarks about the euro that were contained in the written text of his speech, which, unfortunately for him, had already been released to the press. Afterwards, the Chancellor made sure that those transactions were leaked, to the further embarrassment of the Foreign Secretary. Last Friday, the Foreign Secretary said that joining the euro was inevitable. Within hours, he had been disowned by the Prime Minister's spokesman—again apparently at the Chancellor's request.
Now we come to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—there is a name that the business community conjures with. He is a real expert on European business and a man who understands the intricacies of the minds of German industrialists. A brief phone call to BMW and he has all the facts at his fingertips. What about the Chancellor? He has defended his turf aggressively and his position seems to be, "How dare anybody else have something to say about this issue?" His legendary bad temper seems to have got the better of him and it seems that Leo is not the only baby in Downing street to throw his toys out of his pram. His reward is to be rubbished in the press.
Some weeks ago, a colleague of the Chancellor told us anonymously that he is psychologically flawed. Now, according to other Ministers and again anonymously, we are told that he is either bonkers or power crazed, although I suppose that it is possible to be both. This must be a unique example of a campaign to undermine the authority of a Chancellor of the Exchequer that is apparently sanctioned by the Prime Minister. Where, one


asks oneself, has the Prime Minister been in all this? Giving a lead? Not this Prime Minister. He wants to climb, but is frightened to fall. He wants to join, but is terrified of public opinion. He will not bow to public opinion nor lead it, so he seeks to manipulate it.
On the most important issue facing this country, the Prime Minister is paralysed by weakness. That would be funny if we were discussing dragging hooligans off to cashpoints, but the Government's indecision is seriously damaging Britain's position in the European Union. If we eventually decide not to join the euro, we will not be at the heart of Europe. However, I believe that we can construct a more flexible relationship in which Britain can flourish and all the recent talk about manufacturing meltdown and the drying up of foreign investment will be seen for the nonsense that it is. If we decide to join the euro, perhaps we can be at the heart of the EU and perhaps we can influence its policy and future direction in Britain's interest. At the moment, we can do neither.
In a speech on this subject nearly three years ago, the Chancellor set out five tests. Four are so unspecific that they could be answered either way at any time. No doubt that is what he intended. I suggest that over the next two years or so we are unlikely to learn anything more or any further facts that will help us to evaluate whether those tests have been met. Four—on flexibility, investment, employment and the City—can be answered only by joining the euro and seeing what happens. However, we know that being out of the euro for the past 18 months has done us no harm in any of those areas. In fact, in all four we have by far the best record in the EU.
The Chancellor's first—and, I think, main—criterion was that he wanted to see convergence. That is sensible, but he will not find out about convergence in 18 months or two years. I could have understood him saying that he wanted to wait for a whole economic cycle as wanting to see how the single currency works in bad times as well as in good represents a sensible position. What would happen in a recession? After all, a recession destroyed the exchange rate mechanism. We have seen some convergence on inflation and interest rates and even on growth, but there is little or none on economic cycles, or even evidence of it.
There are not five tests, four, three or even two. Like many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, I believe that the Prime Minister has only one test: when can he get away with conning the British public into agreeing to join a single currency? That argument has been going on for well over a decade, one way and another. Members of

Parliament, newspaper editors, economists and other commentators all made up their minds long ago, did they not? I believe that we all did and that nothing that happens in the next two years will make any of us change our views.
Under this Government, and with the present confusion and uncertainty, the decision can be made only in a referendum. My Bill calls for that referendum to take place on 28 September—the date on which the Danish Government have invited Danish voters to decide whether they want to join. If that is good enough for them, it is good enough for us. However, I acknowledge what one or two of my hon. Friends have said: it would take time to put proper campaigns together, so in due course I should be happy to accept an amendment to allow a referendum to take place a few weeks later. However, it ought to be held before the end of the year.
I have for a long time believed that the euro is bad economics and bad politics. It is like the exchange rate mechanism without an exit door. In any referendum I will campaign vigorously for a no vote. I believe that the time for a referendum has now come. What the business community wants is not a commitment to join, but a decision one way or the other. It needs to know so that it can plan. The Government's position makes that impossible.
Let both sides take their case to the voters. Let us have a proper, full and open argument with the advantages and disadvantages honestly debated. I hope passionately that the answer will be no, and that we can build with the European Union a constructive and flexible relationship of benefit to Britain. If the answer is yes, we will all have to work to ensure that the resulting relationship works to Britain's advantage. A continuation of the current confusion and uncertainty cannot be justified. That confusion bedevils our relationship with the European Union, makes it impossible for business men to plan, and makes the Government look pathetic.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Maples, Mr. Edward Leigh, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. Nicholas Soames, Sir Michael Spicer and Sir Peter Tapsell.

EUROPEAN SINGLE CURRENCY (REFERENDUM)

Mr. John Maples accordingly presented a Bill to provide for a referendum on 28th September 2000 to decide whether the United Kingdom should join the European Single Currency: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 156].

Orders of the Day — Hundredth Birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty on the hundredth birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother, humbly conveying to Her Majesty, on such a unique and memorable occasion, the loyal affection of the House and the nation for Her Majesty The Queen Mother;
That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by such Members of the House as are of Her Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council or of Her Majesty's Household;
That a Message be sent to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother rejoicing with Her on the attainment of Her hundredth birthday; expressing to Her Majesty the people's gratitude for Her lifelong example of trust in the Lord, and courage and service in war and in peace; and praying for Her health and happiness in days to come;
That Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister, Margaret Beckett, Mr. William Hague and Mr. Charles Kennedy do wait upon Her Majesty with the said Message.
I have moved the motion to assure Her Majesty of the great pleasure that this House shares with the nation on the occasion of the forthcoming 100th birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother holds a unique place in the heart of the nation and of many people across the world. As we think back over the multitude of events in her long life, many will recall first the remarkable part played by the Queen Mother as Queen and Consort to her much loved husband, the late King George VI. Countless people have etched on their minds the wartime pictures of the Queen and her husband engaging with the hazards of the capital during the blitz. Sustaining the nation's morale and strengthening its resolve in the epic battle for freedom, she was a source of inspiration which sealed her in our nation's heart, just as, during the first world war, the young Lady Elizabeth had provided care and welfare in the hospital at Glamis castle helping others in her direct, straightforward and positive way.
Her Majesty gives her support to some 350 organisations as patron or president—charities, voluntary bodies and other organisations: a vast tapestry of public service. She is Commandant-in-Chief for women in the Royal Navy and of women in the Royal Air Force, as well as Colonel-in-Chief of seven Army regiments and one Army corps. For many years, she was President of the British Red Cross and remains Commandant-in-Chief of the nursing division of St. John Ambulance. She has enthused countless people, for countless good causes, with her familiar smile, her sparkle and, of course, her wonderful hats.
Representatives from many of those organisations will come together in a unique tribute on Horseguards parade next week. Young and old, soldiers and civilians, will appear with race horses, corgis and, I am told, even camels to capture Her Majesty's huge range of interests.
We remember, too, the Queen Mother opening the Victory in Europe 50th anniversary commemorations in Hyde park and taking her place on the balcony at Buckingham palace. We have seen her there on state and royal occasions. We have seen her present at Cenotaph ceremonies on Remembrance Sunday, and she has represented this country on numerous occasions in the Commonwealth and elsewhere. Whether an occasion is sad or celebratory, formal or intimate, it is always enhanced by her presence.
Today, Her Majesty remains at the centre of the royal family's life and work, important to every generation and—as a mother, grandmother and great-grandmother—bringing stability and continuity to our monarchy.
Often when people reach 100, others ask them for their recipe for a long and happy life. I do not know what the Queen Mother's reply would be. I might guess that her secret lies in her genuine and unaffected interest in people, and in her zest for life. She has indeed lived out the Strathmore motto—"In you, Lord, have I put my trust"—and has combined a strong faith and a compassion for others with a great sense of fun. She has moved with the times, but has consistently displayed the age-old values of loyalty, duty and constancy.
The Queen Mother has been witness to, and has played a prominent role in, 100 years of change. Amid that change—faster in our world today than at any time in our history—she, and the monarchy, have acted as a rock of stability and strength to our nation. We wish her health and happiness, and we offer from the House our heartfelt greetings and gratitude at this very special time.

Mr. William Hague: It is a privilege for me to associate myself fully, on behalf of the Opposition, with the tribute that the Prime Minister has just paid to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, and to support the motion that a message should be sent from the House conveying our warmest congratulations to Her Majesty on the occasion of her forthcoming 100th birthday. I believe that, in doing so, we are reflecting the sentiments of millions of people throughout the United Kingdom who hold this truly remarkable lady in the highest possible affection. The Queen Mother's 100th birthday is an occasion to unite the entire nation—and, indeed, people throughout the Commonwealth that has always meant so much to her.
Everywhere she goes, the Queen Mother radiates warmth, charm and dignity, combined with a sense of fun that captivates everyone who meets her. Born in the final year of the reign of Queen Victoria, she has come to represent the continuity and strength of the monarchy, and its central role in the affairs of our nation. She has helped to bring home to people the stability that constitutional monarchy brings to our country—and, in the opinion of many, how much better we are served by it than by any of the alternatives that are sometimes suggested.
In both her public and her private life, the Queen Mother has been an immense source of strength. That was most apparent in the way in which she supported the monarchy and the country, and supported King George VI after he acceded to the throne. Together, they sought successfully to restore public confidence in the monarchy. For most people, it was the leadership and inspiration that the King and Queen showed during the war that ensured


their lasting place in the hearts of the nation. Their refusal to leave London at the height of the blitz—especially after Buckingham palace itself was bombed—and their sense of duty and determination established them as the focal point for national unity, at the time of Britain's gravest as well as finest hour.
Everyone remembers the Queen Mother's remark about being able to look the east end in the face, but to me the comment that best encapsulates her attitude is her response to the suggestion that her daughters be evacuated: "They will not leave without me, I will not leave without the King, and the King will never leave."
Few of us here today who were privileged to see it will ever forget the emotion of the Queen Mother's appearance on the balcony at Buckingham palace in 1995 to recreate, with her two daughters, the scene on VE day 50 years before. It reminded us why the Queen Mother, devoted to her family and her country, has come to symbolise the sacrifices that our parents and grandparents made to preserve the freedoms that we all enjoy in Britain today. Since the war, and the death of the King in 1952, she has devoted herself tirelessly and selflessly to public duty, carrying out more than 40 official visits abroad, and serving as patron and president of more than 350 organisations. She is still carrying out public duties in her 100th year.
Two years ago, the Prince of Wales described his grandmother as indestructible. Nothing better sums up the strength and spirit of a lady who, as she approaches her 100th birthday, continues to enrich the life of our nation. Her birthday is a matter of rejoicing for us all; and, as we celebrate it, we do so in the hope that this "indestructible" and gracious lady will enjoy still more in the years to come.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Liberal Democrat party may I equally entirely associate myself with the sentiments that were expressed by the Prime Minister on this unique occasion? I think that all the party leaders who were present earlier today at that magnificent ceremony in St. Paul's will be in no doubt as to the breadth as well as the depth of respect and affection in which Her Majesty is properly held.
If one looks at this unique and remarkable life, it is in so many ways the story of the 20th century itself. It has spanned the 20th century and seen everything from the discovery of penicillin to two world wars, the emergence and then disappearance of the Soviet Union, as well as all the vast social changes in our country, the continent of Europe and the Commonwealth as a whole. She is an inspiration and a beacon. We all share in her pleasure and happiness today. She has enriched many people's lives and our lives have been enriched accordingly.

Mr. David Trimble: It is with considerable pleasure that I join in supporting the motion that has been moved by the Prime Minister. Of course, in doing so, I speak for the Ulster Unionist party, but I believe that I speak for more in Northern Ireland than just that party, and that the proposal that has been made—that

a humble address be presented to Her Majesty with regard to the approaching centenary of the Queen Mother—would be warmly supported throughout society in Northern Ireland. There may be a few curmudgeonly people who pretend to hold to anti-monarchical principles, but the truth is that most reasonable people recognise the tremendous contribution not only that the monarchy in general has made, but that the Queen Mother personally has made throughout the century.
Other right hon. Members have referred to the tremendous contribution that the Queen Mother made at the time of the abdication crisis and, of course, throughout the war. We in Northern Ireland will remember particularly the many visits that she has made to Northern Ireland—more than 11, I think—since the second world war, the most recent being in 1990 as part of her 90th birthday celebrations. Of course, we do not expect similar tours on the occasion of the centenary, it being an achievement even to reach that.
The humble address refers to the great pleasure that the House shares with the nation. Often, the terms in motions that are proposed in the House have a formal character, but, on this occasion, there is no doubt about the reality of the great pleasure that everyone in the nation will take on this centenary. Great pleasure is there not just because of her longevity and war-time service, but because of the character of the Queen Mother. That great pleasure undoubtedly is shared throughout the House. We should add that not just in our own nation, but, I am sure, throughout the Commonwealth, many will be eternally grateful to the Queen Mother for all her characteristics, but particularly for the sense of duty that has characterised her entire life of service.

Mr. John Swinney: May I make a brief comment and associate the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru with the terms of the motion and with the message that it is proposed be conveyed to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother? I have the privilege to represent the village of Glamis, the childhood home of Her Majesty in the county of Angus; the family home of the Bowes-Lyon family is located there. She spent much of her youth there before her marriage to the then Duke of York.
Much has already been said about the courage of Her Majesty during the second world war in remaining in London. I was pleased that the Prime Minister mentioned the fact that, during the first world war, when Glamis castle was turned into a hospital, the Queen Mother spent most of her time there caring for patients who had been injured in the first world war and who were recuperating in the splendour of the county of Angus.
Her Majesty has maintained a very close interest in the life of the village of Glamis. Her interest has been long-standing, including a visit to the village only two years ago for a ceremony with the Black Watch regiment, of which she is Colonel-in-Chief. We wish Her Majesty health and happiness at this proud moment in her long life.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to associate the Ulster Democratic Unionist party with the motion.
I have been informed by the Library that this is the first time that the House of Commons has been asked to debate a motion commending a King or Queen on attaining his or her century year. The Queen Mother, however, is a first in her own right. During her years as the Queen and Consort of King George VI, she became a legend: because of her steadfastness, her courage, her dignity, her resourcefulness and her majesty as she stood with her husband and her kingdom in the darkest days of the second world war.
Early on in her life, as a teenager, the Queen Mother had learned something of the trials of war, with its bereavements, deaths, heartbreaks and sorrows. She is indeed a first in the lives of the subjects of her Kingdom: because of her genuine interest in and concern for the public of this country over a long life of dedicated and majestic service.
On a visit to my constituency of North Antrim, she said to me, "I am not in a hurry; I have time. Time is not my dictator; I dictate to time. I want to meet people." She also reminded me about, and inquired about, people whom she had met many years before, when she and her husband had opened the town hall in Ballymena. She has a marvellous memory for people, places and facts. I believe that that comes from her deep commitment to the task that she was appointed to do.
One day, one of the Queen Mother's pilots said to me, "Often, when we take off on a journey, the Queen Mother says to me, 'We are not in any hurry to get away. Let's stay a little longer.'" It is indeed a great joy to us all that she has achieved her century year. Although I do not often agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury, I agree with his comments today on the Queen Mother—I can even say an amen to them.
We know that the Queen Mother lives in the hearts and minds of her people. Although Kings and Queens were once addressed with the words, "O live for ever", that royal person lives in the hearts of all her subjects. I believe that she will live there for ever, and I sincerely wish her many happy returns.

Mr. Tom King: I had the great privilege and pleasure of accompanying Her Majesty the Queen Mother at celebrations hosted by the Ministry of Defence, 10 years ago, on the occasion of her 90th birthday. On that very remarkable occasion, it was the dearest wish of everyone that we should indeed be able to see her celebrate her centenary.
The Queen Mother greatly enjoyed and showed great enthusiasm for all the events of that day. After the parade, which lasted one and a half hours, she spent another one and a half hours going round and talking to people, thanking every single person who had participated in the parade or helped to organise it, at a party in the Banqueting house. That was simply symptomatic of the way in which, throughout her life, she has shown an interest in and concern for people.
It is a matter of the greatest pleasure and warmth that, having had the pleasure of welcoming the Queen Mother to her 90th birthday, we see her now celebrating her centenary.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty on the hundredth birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother, humbly conveying to Her Majesty, on such a unique and memorable occasion, the loyal affection of the House and the nation for Her Majesty The Queen Mother;
That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by such Members of the House as are of Her Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council or of Her Majesty's Household;
That a Message be sent to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother rejoicing with Her on the attainment of Her hundredth birthday; expressing to Her Majesty the people's gratitude for Her lifelong example of trust in the Lord, and courage and service in war and in peace; and praying for Her health and happiness in days to come;
That Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister, Margaret Beckett, Mr. William Hague and Mr. Charles Kennedy do wait upon Her Majesty with the said Message.

Orders of the Day — Police (Northern Ireland) Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill—

Timetable

1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

(2) Proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) seven hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

Questions to be put

2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on the Bill to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.

(2) The Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(4) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put under sub-paragraph (2)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

Miscellaneous

3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply at today's sitting to proceedings to which this Order applies.

4. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill.

6. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

7. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to the Bill.

Supplemental Orders

8. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (if not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.

9. If at today's sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

I shall set out why the Government regard the motion as necessary. The Government are committed to the implementation of the Belfast agreement in all its elements, and the reform of policing in Northern Ireland,

which the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill will achieve, is an integral and extremely important part of the agreement. We want to see a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland, and the Bill lays the foundation for that fresh start and that new beginning.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said on Second Reading on 6 June:
The Bill paves the way for the most complex changes in policing practice and culture ever attempted—changes that, if successful, will provide as good a model for policing as can be found anywhere in the world. The philosophy, size, structure, composition, training, accountability, human rights ethos, planning and information systems and community base of Northern Ireland's police will all change if the Bill is enacted.—[Official Report, 6 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 177.]

The whole House should know that we made good and constructive progress in our 11 sittings and more than 40 hours of debate on the Bill in Standing Committee B. This progress was assisted, even focused, by the structured way in which members of the Committee dealt with the issues. We were able to have useful debates that concentrated on the key issues of concern to the various parties represented on the Committee. I hope that those hon. Members who were on the Committee will acknowledge that the Government were willing to consider, and make, constructive changes to the Bill. We have also brought forward further changes to consider later today.

The Government want to maintain that good momentum. We have had a full debate on the Bill in Committee and we want to ensure that we make good progress tonight. My understanding is that it was not possible through the usual channels to reach broad agreement on an informal timetable for this evening's debate. This timetable motion will help the Government to stick to their timetable for the Bill. It will help focus debate. It is a precautionary approach.

All the provisions in the Bill were dealt with in detail in Committee. The Committee did its job properly. Discussion was full and reasonable. We covered the issues thoroughly. However, it is important to note that there are no issues raised by the amendments in front of us today that were not aired in Committee. The Government's judgment is that six hours ought to be sufficient for the House to deal with the Report Stage. It is up to hon. Members to use the time available responsibly and to best effect.

We are willing to work with those who want to play a constructive role in helping us to fashion and improve the Bill. That will require the House to focus on the issues in a structured way. For that reason, we believe that a timetable is helpful. We have not sought to stifle debate on the Bill. There can be no criticism of how the Government dealt with the Bill in Committee, nor of the other parties represented in Committee.

The House should not baulk at the amount of work that needs to be got through on Report. Right hon. and hon. Members should know that the vast majority of amendments for consideration are technical changes on the name. Many of the others are in response to issues on which there was general agreement in Committee. Only a few of the amendments could be classed as being of a contentious nature.

The Government have demonstrated that we are open to debate and that we are prepared to take on board constructive and helpful proposals to improve the Bill.


We are still prepared to listen to constructive suggestions for change. The good work that has been done needs to continue and I look forward to debating the issues further. That is the best way forward and the best way to serve the needs of all the people of Northern Ireland.

There is fundamental change ahead for the police service. The Government, in discussion with the police and others, have sought to identify an ordered and logical way to take that forward. Our approach, and the timetable that we have set, is outlined in the implementation plan, which the Secretary of State published on 6 June and which is available in the House.

The implementation plan recognises that such a wide range and depth of change cannot happen overnight and, as Patten recognised, will take time to implement. However, we need to get the building blocks in place to take the change forward. The Bill is one of those building blocks. Those who oppose the Bill and the Government's approach serve no one but their own factional interests. That has to be recognised, as have the reasons for it, but it does not move the process forward. This Bill is about putting in place building blocks for the future, and that must be the best way to make progress.

I have been brief in my explanation of the timetable motion. That was my deliberate intention, as it is important that the House should move on to consider the Bill and the important issues raised by the selected amendments. I trust that we will not be treated to an extended debate on the motion, which could be interpreted as calculated to eat up the whole of the three hours that have been timetabled for discussion and to lay the ground for accusations in another place that insufficient time was allowed here for discussion of the issues. For that reason, I have set out fully, and I believe succinctly, my reasons for commending the motion to the House.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: This is a sad day for the House and for Northern Ireland. This is not a timetable motion, but a straightforward guillotine. It is not up to the Minister to decide how long the House should take to debate the motion; it is up to hon. Members to decide whether they want to speak. It was unhelpful, and typical of the arrogance of this Government, that we were lectured on how long we should debate the motion.
The motion is deeply insensitive on a day when the Royal Ulster Constabulary is yet again bravely and professionally acting as the thin green line between the rule of law and the Province descending into anarchy. What a way to treat those officers, who have a natural vested interest in this legislation being right, at a time when they are risking life and limb and when so-called loyalist thugs only last night shot at them and petrol-bombed them when they were only fulfilling their professional duty and protecting the right of the ordinary decent majority of people in both communities freely to travel around the Province and to go to and from work. The very least that the House owes the Royal Ulster Constabulary is a proper and full debate on the Bill.
As an Opposition, we regularly acknowledge that the Government have a right to get their business. This Bill was in the Queen's speech and, after proper debate, deliberation and amendment, it is right that the Government should get it on to the statute book. We did not oppose the Second Reading and we will not oppose Third Reading, but we believe that the Bill is fundamentally flawed in a number of ways.
A large number of amendments have to be considered—amendments tabled by individual Members on both sides of the House. I should like to think that my hon. Friends and I have tabled some significant amendments on the name and who sits on the bodies and partnerships. Significant amendments have also been tabled by the Ulster Unionists and the Democratic Unionists and important amendments by the Social Democratic and Labour party and by certain Labour Back Benchers, at least one of whom I can see in his place. We also have to consider a number of Government amendments—some on the name of the police that are very contentious, and others that are a response to concerns expressed by hon. Members in Committee.
All the amendments need to be considered properly on Report. To allow a mere six hours, which must include the debate on this motion, is hopelessly insufficient. It is an insult to the brave men and women of the RUC—[Interruption.] The Minister seems to think that is not the case, so I repeat: I sincerely believe that the motion is an insult to the brave men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and that it shows the arrogance of the Government, because they do not allow proper debate.
Let us consider the progress of the Bill. A full debate was held on Second Reading, when the Bill was not opposed by the official Opposition. When the measure was considered in Committee, the Minister rightly acknowledged that there was proper debate and that no member of the Committee had engaged in filibustering. After a mere 11 sittings, this detailed Bill left Committee with co-operation from both sides. In those circumstances, why on earth is a guillotine motion needed?
I have been a party to guillotine motions. Throughout the previous Parliament, I was a Whip, becoming Deputy Chief Whip. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), I had a record of supporting guillotine motions at certain times. However, only after filibustering and a long delay in Committee should there be a guillotine on both Committee and Report. On no occasion was a guillotine imposed when a Minister admitted that no undue delay had taken place, and that a measure had received proper professional consideration in Committee. There is no good reason for the motion.
Why has the guillotine motion been introduced? I suggest that it is because the Government—legitimately—want to send the Bill to the Lords so that it can receive its Second Reading there before the summer recess. Why are we in such a difficulty? Let us examine the chronology. The House will recall that Patten reported on 9 September 1999. On 17 November, the Prime Minister made it clear in the Gracious Speech that there would be legislation to reform the police service in Northern Ireland. The consultation period on Patten ended on 1 December. On 19 January, the Secretary of State made a statement to the House giving the conclusions.
What happened to that legislation announced in the Queen's Speech? From the moment that the Belfast agreement was signed, everybody knew that the legislation would be introduced. There was no sign of it in January, February, March or April. Finally, on 16 May, the Government staggered forward and published the Bill. On 6 June, the measure received its Second Reading and on 6 July its Committee stage was concluded after 11 sittings.
If there is any problem in getting the Bill to the Lords in good time and then on to the statute book, it has been caused exclusively by the Government. They introduced the Bill so late that there was insufficient time to debate it. If it is so vital that a Bill introduced so late should go to the Lords for a Second Reading debate, which will probably be held in the last week before we rise for the recess, then we should consider it over more than one day. We should scrap some of the unnecessary legislation that the Government are introducing.
The Government are in a mess, although I feel slightly sorry for the Secretary of State and the Minister of State. It is not entirely their fault that Parliament has been overburdened with a huge number of Bills—more than have ever been introduced in one sitting. Bills are being presented desperately late in the sitting—for example, the measure on football hooliganism. That Bill should have been introduced several months ago, when the problem was identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). Instead, apparently it is to be rushed through in just a couple of days.
This is a Government whose legislative programme is totally out of control. It is a shambles. They are not just an incompetent Government; they are also an arrogant Government, and we, as an Opposition, will not encourage them either in their incompetence or in their arrogance by supporting the guillotine motion this afternoon.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said that the motion was not a timetable motion but a guillotine, because it had not been agreed beforehand by other parties.
I do not feel that this guillotine is disrespectful to the RUC or to its record of courageous achievement in Northern Ireland. I say that because anyone who spent in the Committee the 40 hours that the Minister described will have seen that Members from all parties were obviously committed to making a better police service while being respectful to the RUC and the contribution that it has made. Therefore, I feel that some of the criticisms made by the right hon. Member for Bracknell were slightly out of kilter with the debate that took place in Committee. I am not criticising him; I just have a different view.

Mr. MacKay: At no point did I suggest that there had not been proper scrutiny in Committee. In fact, the only thing on which I agreed with the Minister of State was that there had been proper scrutiny and no filibustering in Committee. Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that the RUC and the whole country deserve proper scrutiny of the Bill not only in Committee but on the Floor of the House. A large number of Members are present on both sides of the House who did not serve on the Committee, and they have a right to debate, consider and discuss the amendments. That is the reason for our objection. We are simply saying that there should not be a guillotine on Report, and that there should be the opportunity to discuss properly all those important matters of reform.

Mr. Öpik: I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, which he makes quite clearly, but I am

sure that he would agree that this is not a matter of principle but a matter of judgment about what the Government were trying to do with what I would imagine that they intended basically as a timetable motion, regardless of whether they agreed it with the other parties beforehand.
On that subject, I must simply agree to differ with the right hon. Member for Bracknell, for two reasons. First, the 40 hours of debate in Committee were comprehensive, and the Committee was one of the most effective Standing Committees that I have ever worked on—not least because the Government showed some willingness to modify their position as debate progressed, although obviously not in all regards. We shall come to those issues as today's debate progresses. In fact, we could have taken more time in Committee, but there were occasions when, the debate's having concluded early, people were satisfied that it had been as extensive as was required at the time.
The second reason why I am of the judgment that the time that has been allocated is probably sufficient is that many of the Government's amendments were tabled specifically in response to points made by non-Government Members during the Bill's earlier stages. Various proposals that the Liberal Democrats made, and proposals that the official Opposition made, are now being carried out.
However, there are issues to which I know that we shall have to return. It is no surprise to the House that I continue to be extremely unhappy with the use of quotas, and I hope that, in the time available, we shall be able to raise that and other issues of substantial importance to myself to other hon. Members and to other parties.
On balance, therefore, I draw the conclusion that, as long as we do not spend the next three hours debating the programming motion, we shall have enough time to get on with it, and to have the debate in the fullness that it needs.
It is worth remembering that, by the end of the Committee's deliberations, those Members who served on it were apprised of the importance of getting the Bill passed; and if, by twenty minutes to 12 tonight, we have not debated all the important outstanding issues sufficiently deeply before the Bill passes on to the other place—whether or not the Government accept the wise words that will be presented to them from other parts of the House—I shall be extremely surprised. For that reason, as a matter of judgment rather than a matter of principle, we consider that the Government's attempt to timetable the debate is basically common sense.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: The Bill derives from the Patten commission report, which was presented several months ago and which, in itself, was flawed in that it stepped far outside Patten's terms of reference, which were based on the Belfast agreement. Patten chose to ignore that and published a report that was described in this House and elsewhere—I believe by Home Office officials—as an interesting report, but certainly one that had nothing to do with policing. That, of course, has had a knock-on effect in that we have before us a Bill that no doubt has to do with political accommodation, but has nothing to do with policing or law and order.
The reality is that, after 30 years of violence in Northern Ireland, a different ethos pervades our society than that which some of us grew up with. It is an ethos


that adjusts easily to criminality, to the extent that we have in Northern Ireland a powerful mafia sub-culture. That is an issue that should be debated at length as we go through the Bill. While it is all very well to say that we dealt with each of the issues in Committee, it is important that any of us who are elected to the House recognise our responsibility to our electorate and realise that we cannot dismiss the input of the House just because a Bill has gone through a Committee to be fine-tuned.
If my calculations are right, the Government have tabled 222 amendments to the Bill, and they expect us to deal with them and the other amendments in six hours. One realises why the Minister was so apologetic about the Government's intention to guillotine the Bill.
I hope that the House will be able, on Report and Third Reading, to move the Bill into a form in which it primarily deals with the interests of the police and society in Northern Ireland as they grapple with a growing drugs problem and a huge tax evasion problem—something that should interest the Government. We hear that petrol prices have to be kept high in order that we can pay for our health and education programmes, yet the Government are ruling over a Province in which up to £1 billion in petrol duty is probably being evaded by means of smuggling from the Irish Republic. [Interruption.] The Minister of State corrects me from a sedentary position and suggests that the figure is £100 million. He knows as well as I do that he is wrong. Even Customs and Excise, who used to throw out that figure with abandon, now admit to a figure that is approaching—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think that I need to remind him that we are debating an allocation of time motion. He is now straying a little too far from it.

Mr. Maginnis: If I appeared to stray, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise. I was trying to illustrate how the Government are presenting the House with a Bill, the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, that has nothing to do with policing and that the House must therefore put right if it is to have any significance whatsoever for society in Northern Ireland in general and for the police in particular.
The Minister knows that the level at which our mafia sub-culture is becoming organised in Northern Ireland will not be hindered one iota by anything in the Bill. Instead of dealing with that matter, instead of giving the House time to consider the implications of what is before us, the Government are guillotining the debate.
The Minister should give us the facts as to whether the Bill contains anything to enhance policing in terms of the job that the police have to do in order to protect society—protect it from violence, corruption and abuse of the tax system. He may be able to give us an indication of when there has been a major measure to deal with the problem that I have described, whether the extent of that problem is £100 million or nearer to £1 billion. The Minister must tell us what there is in the Bill to reverse the trend in that respect and in respect of drug peddling and drug misuse. Nothing in the Bill will make the ordinary, law-abiding, virtually non-political Mr. Average Citizen in Northern Ireland feel safer and more secure.
That is why it is wrong that the Government should bring forward 222 amendments, on top of those that other parties have tabled, and expect us to rush them through

without due consideration, when, as the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said, we could have had the Bill four or five months ago. I do not believe that it was by accident that we had the Bill at the last minute and that the Government asked those of us who are in opposition to co-operate in getting it through the Committee stage. They received that co-operation, so that nothing was left untouched, but we made it clear at the outset that we would not consider a guillotine on Report appropriate. We made it clear that if we were to co-operate with the Government in Committee, the Government would have to co-operate with Members of the Opposition parties—and not just my own party—on Report so that the serious deficiencies of the Bill were not swept under the carpet.
From the outset, the Minister has been aware of our concerns. Therefore, he must answer the points that I have made.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I have been amazed at some of the statements that have been made in the debate already. They do not have much relevance to the amount of time that we have to consider the Bill.
In last week's Northern Ireland Grand Committee, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) referred to the persecution of the Baha'i faith in Ulster as though that were a matter of importance. I am glad that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) put him right on that issue.

Mr. Öpik: rose—

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am not giving way, because we need time to deal with the Bill, which has nothing to do with the Baha'i faith. I have a good relationship with members of that faith and not once have they said that they have been persecuted in Northern Ireland. I would nail any suggestion that they have been as an atrocious lie.
I was also amazed by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who rightly condemned the attacks on the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I condemn them, too, and I have already done that on the record in the Assembly. The right hon. Gentleman is laughing with his friends on the Opposition Front Bench, but he forgets the two atrocious attacks that were carried out by republicans. In his opening remarks, he did not even mention the 250-lb republican bomb in Stewartstown or what happened in Aghalee last night when republicans attacked an Orange hall and gutted it. They attacked another hall, too. The attacks that are taking place in Northern Ireland are coming from both sides of the divide and we need to keep that point in mind.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire thinks that we have had plenty of time to debate the Bill, but no time has been given to my party. In the House, there are three Members from the Social Democratic and Labour party and two of them were on the Bill's Committee. There are two Members of the Democratic Unionist party in the House, and the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) is also a Unionist. Not one of those three voices was allowed on the Committee. We can refer to the hours that were spent on the debates in Committee, but one point of view—the majority Unionist view, as was seen from the vote in the Assembly last Tuesday—was


locked out of the Committee. Members who represent that view were locked out simply because they would not have helped the Bill to go forward; they would have sought to curb its provisions. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said that the Bill does not deal with issues such as drugs and the mafia. Its main thrust is to demoralise and destroy the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Although he does not attend this place, Mr. McGuinness is a Member of the House and he is a Minister in Northern Ireland. On a radio programme about the Stewartstown bombing, he was asked whether he would tell anyone who knew anything about the bombing to go to the police. He said, "Certainly not." When a Minister in Northern Ireland tells the people who know about the laying of a 250-lb bomb at a police station that could have killed many people—it could have been another Omagh—not to go to the police, how can anyone have any faith in what is happening in Northern Ireland at this time? Those are the issues that we should keep in mind.
We have not had time to debate the Bill. We were told that we would have time on Second Reading, but the time for speeches of the representatives of Northern Ireland was limited to 10 minutes.
We should have had more time on Second Reading, but it was not given. The Government kept one section of the community of Northern Ireland out of the Committee, but today they say that we have plenty of time. We do not have plenty of time. The Government say that debate will be guillotined after seven hours, which includes the time spent on this motion. Guillotines did not used to affect the time for discussing the guillotine. Now, however, discussion of the guillotine takes away from the time given to the debate. Why has that departure taken place? Why do we not have the old rules if we are going to have guillotines? We are not having a guillotined discussion now, so there is an encroachment on the time that we should have for debate. That is a fact.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman will agree that the position is even worse than he has described. Any votes will come out of time for discussion.

Rev. Ian Paisley: When the time for votes is taken away, how much time do we have? I urge hon. Members to look at the fact that more than 200 amendments have been tabled. We do not have adequate time to deal with a matter that has seriously divided the people of Northern Ireland and will continue to divide them.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I oppose the motion on more general grounds which, if I may be forgiven, are not especially related to this particular Bill. I want to protest at the frequency with which the Government are introducing these motions. I believe that this motion is the 36th to be introduced. Indeed, this time last week, we addressed a timetable motion for the Local Government Bill. On that occasion, the hon. Member for Crewe and

Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) launched an extremely formidable attack on her own Front Benchers' use of this type of motion.
I find motions of this kind objectionable, both in general and in particular. The present motion is objectionable because the Report stage of a Bill is the only occasion on which the House as a whole has the opportunity to debate the detail of the measure. The hon. Member for North Antrim made a fair point when he said that his party was not represented in Committee. It does not matter whether or not I agree with him, as he should be able to express his distinctive view on the Bill. The Bill's Report stage is the only time when he is able to do that, which also holds true for other hon. Members on the Ulster Benches. Of course, it also true of Conservative Members because, inevitably, we are only lightly represented in Committee.

Mr. Ingram: At the moment.

Mr. Hogg: Yes, of course, at the moment. Our views often coincide with the views expressed by our Front-Bench spokesman, but they do not always do so. It is important that the House should give Back Benchers a proper opportunity to discuss fully the detail of a Bill and amendments to it.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I have listened with interest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Is he aware that many Government Members who wanted to strengthen the Bill were kept off the Committee? The grievance is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's alone, but we must accept what has happened.

Mr. Hogg: I am not being critical of the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, his point reinforces what I want to say. I am sure that there are Government Members who feel that the Bill is defective in one way or another, and they should have a full and proper opportunity to voice their opinions, as that is what democracy is about.
We are confronted with 10 groups of amendments. In all, there are some 335 amendments, of which 224 are Government amendments, as I think the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) told me. That means that many of the amendments will not be debated at all, and the effect of that is surely to undermine the democratic legitimacy of decisions made in the House. If amendments and new clauses become law without having been discussed at all, how can we say that they have been passed with the democratic authority of this place?

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this is simply another manifestation of the increasing power of the Executive over the liberties of the House and an attempt to circumscribe what is properly the function of elected Members of the House of Commons?

Mr. Hogg: I do indeed. That point was made forcefully by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich when she was speaking on a timetable motion last Tuesday.
I speak now on behalf of Back Benchers. From time to time, Front-Bench Members agree timetables between them. This is not a case in point, because I am well aware


that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) has not agreed to this timetable, and he was right not to do so. Back Benchers need to be cautious about supporting any agreed timetable, because Front-Bench Members will agree on matters that are of great importance to them, but they do not necessarily address what is of great importance to Back Benchers, which may well be different. The reason for that is as follows—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman to spare the House that particular reason; we are debating a specific allocation of time motion. If he wants to pursue procedural matters as a whole, he must find another opportunity to do so.

Mr. Hogg: I am now coming from that general point to a particular one. If we consider the amendments that have been tabled by Members other than Front Benchers, we find that a number of them express the particular concerns of Back Benchers, often those from the Ulster parties. The effect of any timetable motion—and this is, in fact, a guillotine rather than a timetable motion, in so far as there is a difference—is that those Members will be shut out and they will unable to articulate the grievances that are felt very powerfully by their constituents. That cannot be right.
We have been told by Ministers that this is a precautionary measure, which is basically in the interests of good order and military discipline, but why is that necessary? I understand that there was no filibustering or unparliamentary conduct in Committee. I saw the Minister of State nodding when the hon. Members for North Antrim and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone said that there was a co-operative approach to the Bill.

Mr. Ingram: I, too, said that.

Mr. Hogg: As the Minister says, he also made that point. What, then, are the Government guarding against? Why are we truncating debate? I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would stop any filibustering, but if the proceedings were filibustered, the proper course of action would be to move for closure and then to consider having a timetabled debate.
Those of us who prize the rights of Back Benchers should protest at a process of pre-empting discussion, and it is no good the Government saying that they do not want to discuss this in the small hours of the morning, which may be implicit in the position that they have adopted. I agree that we do not want to discuss the matter then, but the proper solution is not a timetable on one Bill: it is less legislation. There are many Bills with which I have been concerned in the past three or four weeks and many Bills in this Session which we could very well do without. The Government are not conducting business better through the volume of legislation that they carry through; they carry through legislation simply because they think that Departments have a momentum of their own. That is a scandal, because it undermines proper democratic scrutiny.
As I said, the Bill will go to the other place with scores, or perhaps hundreds, of amendments that will not even have been mentioned in this place. That detracts from the democratic authority of the House and it is a scandal. I deplore what is happening.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: As a Member representing a Northern Ireland constituency, I echo the comments that have been made by right hon. and hon. Members and reiterate what was said by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). This is a sad day, given all that the Royal Ulster Constabulary has done, standing in defence of democracy and of the liberties of people living in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom. It is shameful that its future should be dealt with in such a shoddy way.
Many police officers and their families live in my constituency, and I represent them in this place. What am I to say to them when I come to tell them that the best opportunity that the House could offer me to represent their views and those of their families, neighbours and friends was a guillotined debate? I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Bill in detail, so I wanted the opportunity fully to debate all the issues that are important and relevant to the Bill. Why is that opportunity to be denied to me and my colleagues?
I am far from convinced by what the Minister said about the need for haste in having the Bill enacted. There is a feeling in Northern Ireland that the agenda has more to do with the need to satisfy the more extreme elements in society, especially on the republican side, and to deliver certain undertakings that were given to them than it has to do with the need for proper legislation and proper debate on it, leading to a proper policing service that can address the real issues that are of importance to people in Northern Ireland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said.
I echo what was said by the right hon. Member for Bracknell and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). The police have a difficult job in Northern Ireland and they are under attack. We deplore the attacks that have taken place recently—shootings, for example—against the RUC. There was the bomb at Stewartstown and there have been other such incidents. As I represent Aghalee, I mention especially the attack that took place last night on the Orange hall, when people were meeting in it. There was a petrol bomb attack and, but for the grace of God, people might have lost their lives as a result of the actions of republican extremists, who sought to inflame an already unstable situation. We condemn that attack and all the others.

Mr. William Ross: The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is usually able to tell us who is responsible for these attacks—such as the one earlier this week, when he said at about 7 am, the attack having taken place the previous evening, that the bomb was the responsibility of dissidents. Has he been able to say whether it was dissidents or the Provisional IRA who were responsible for that attack?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not helpful to the debate. I suggest to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) that he stick closely to the terms of the motion.

Mr. Donaldson: We are dealing with an issue that is vital to people in Northern Ireland. No one in the House would challenge that assertion. It is an extremely emotive issue for those on both sides of the debate. When Chris


Patten was conducting his inquiries prior to compiling his report, he went round Northern Ireland and spoke to many people and listened to their concerns. I attended some of those meetings. I listened to what people said. When they expressed concern that their views would not be taken into account, I and others argued that there would be proper parliamentary scrutiny, that we would raise their concerns in Parliament and that we would seek to have changes made to the proposals that came from Chris Patten.
What am I to say to those people today? Will we have a proper opportunity? Of course not—there are more than 300 amendments and there is no way we can properly and adequately consider them, let alone put forward the arguments that we want to present in support of the amendments that we want to make.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I hope that when the hon. Gentleman is talking to his constituents he will not inadvertently mislead them, as a great many of the amendments are tiny, technical and of no great significance. I hope that he will put that across to them.

Mr. Donaldson: The amendments may not be of much significance to the hon. Lady's constituents, but many of them are crucial to my constituents—to those who live in Aghalee and who were on the receiving end of last night's attack; to those who live in Dunmurry and who are on the receiving end of attacks by republican extremists; and, indeed, to those in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who stand in the line against attacks from extremists on both sides of the community. The amendments are important and they ought to be afforded proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is absolutely crucial.
Whether some of the amendments are technical misses the point. Those of significance—there are quite a few of them—deserve proper parliamentary scrutiny. It is very difficult for my right hon. and hon. Friends and me to reassure people in Northern Ireland that the matter has been properly scrutinised by the House of Commons. Clearly, given the guillotine motion, that will not be so.

Mr. Ingram: In explaining things to his constituents, the hon. Gentleman could say that his hon. Friends the Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) represented their interests and made very robust arguments in all the areas considered in Committee. I therefore suggest that reading what was said by his hon. Friends will help him to explain to his constituents the case that was put.

Mr. Donaldson: Of course my hon. Friends worked very hard to put forward points of view in Committee, but how many of their amendments were accepted by the Government—no matter how good their arguments? We therefore want an opportunity to voice our concerns on the many amendments that the Government refused to accept in Committee.
One very significant amendment, on the import and effect of the clause dealing with the name of the new police service, has been tabled at the 11th hour. That has caused much concern. I do not know whether the Minister heard the interview given yesterday by my right hon.

Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), in which he expressed very deep concern about the amendments that the Government have tabled latterly. Those issues are important to people in Northern Ireland.
It is a sad day for democracy and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, its reputation, and all that it has done to defend democracy and to battle terrorism in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom, when this House of Commons is not afforded a full and proper opportunity to scrutinise the Bill. The Government can make all the arguments that they want, but they cannot deny that that is how the motion will be perceived in Northern Ireland. That is most unfortunate.
Of course, this is not the first time that the Government have treated Northern Ireland legislation in such a way—and, no doubt, it will not be the last. As I said, there are unfortunately pressures on the Government which do not come from within the House of Commons or, indeed, from Parliament, that determine the time scale within which we must deal with the Bill. We ought to have been given proper and adequate time. There ought to be an opportunity for the concerns of people whom I represent and who are represented by right hon. and hon. Members of all political viewpoints in Northern Ireland to be aired properly and fully. The Government's guillotine motion will not allow them the opportunity that we might have expected.
When we go back home to Northern Ireland tomorrow and try to explain to people what happened in the House of Commons, I fear that many will say once again that they have been let down—let down by a parliamentary process that is supposed to defend their rights and enable them, through their elected representatives, to address issues of vital importance. Sadly, in relation to the future of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the issue of policing in Northern Ireland, the guillotine motion will deny them that right.

Mr. Tony McWalter: There are, of course, matters in the Bill that will prove divisive, but the play that has been made of numbers should be put in context.
There are 237 amendments in the name of the Secretary of State, 190 of which refer solely to the change in nomenclature from "police force" to "police service". I expect that the House will want to debate that change in the philosophy of policing, but it is one issue, not 190. We need one debate; we do not need 190. There are more than 20 other amendments that are simply changes consequential on changes of nomenclature.
I should like to get on with the debate on the substantive issues, and I hope that the House will do so in the very near future.

Mr. Robert McCartney: The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) properly raised the fundamental constitutional issue relating to the guillotine motion—that is, the relationship between the Executive and the House.
The suggestion that an independent body should deal with the selection of members of Select Committees and Standing Committees has already been mentioned, and is


a matter of public debate. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned the composition of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. It included two out of the three Members representing the SDLP, who had a clear and committed perspective on what they considered appropriate amendments. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) was pro-agreement, and had endorsed an agreement that provided Patten with his remit, upon which he has delivered. The hon. Gentleman's views would be very different from those shared by the hon. Member for North Antrim, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and me, yet all three of us were entirely excluded from the Committee.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. ÖOpik) claimed that plenty of time was spent considering the Bill in Committee, but no time at all was spent by the Committee listening to the views or discussing the amendments proposed by the hon. Members who now represent the majority of pro-Union people in Northern Ireland.
The Bill is important because it goes right to the heart of the concerns of the pro-Union community not only about the future protection of their lives, liberty and property, but about a police force that will be able to deal with the mafia atmosphere that is spreading throughout Northern Ireland.

Mr. David Trimble: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I have some sympathy with the viewpoint that he and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) have expressed with regard to the membership of the Committee and their consequent inability to pursue amendments in Committee. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman has the opportunity to table amendments and have them considered on Report. Can he tell me how many amendments he and his colleagues have tabled?

Mr. McCartney: I have consulted the hon. Member for North Antrim and the hon. Member for Belfast, East. I am sure that the House knows that I do not have the same amount of back-up and number of advisers as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). However, I have made detailed, comprehensive and lengthy submissions to Patten, both in writing and orally. After all, the Patten report is the basis for the Bill. The Secretary of State and the Minister said more than once that they intended to implement Patten in full.
We now face dealing with a multiplicity of amendments in a short time. As I have already said, those amendments are central to policing Northern Ireland. It is therefore wrong that Back Benchers are denied an opportunity to explore and debate fully, perhaps not all the technical amendments, but the smaller number of important amendments that go to the heart of the Bill.
I conclude by making some remarks about chronology, which the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) mentioned at the outset. He said that the Government's delay in presenting the Bill at its various stages had occasioned the urgency that requires a guillotine motion. The reason for that was evident from a political point of view: the Government wished to lure the Ulster Unionists into a position whereby they voted in the Ulster Unionist Council to re-enter the Assembly. They did that by

disguising their intentions for the Bill. The Bill is encrusted with a host of amendments, many of which represent a withdrawal from the apparent assurances that the Government had given the Ulster Unionists on the Bill's final form, to encourage them to move in a specific direction. To some extent, that explains the delays in presenting the Bill.
The House must look to its prerogatives and rights, because we are increasingly confronted with the extension of an over-mighty Executive.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: No hon. Member does not believe that legislation that affects Northern Ireland is supremely important. It is important to everyone who represents a British constituency on the mainland; it is supremely important to the citizens of Northern Ireland; it is also important to those in the Republic of Ireland. The peaceful settlement of Ulster is unquestionably a prize that we all seek. However, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) expressed a truth. What is the point of electing Members of Parliament if they cannot speak on the issues that come before the House? What is the point of electing Members of Parliament if they cannot touch on matters of the greatest importance to their fellow citizens? That is the matter of principle that fights against the guillotine.
It is true that not all hon. Members can serve on a Committee, and the only opportunity for those who do not do so to express the voice of their community is on Report and Third Reading on the Floor of the House. I was interested to note that the Minister said, fairly, that the Government had granted up to six hours for considering those matters. Perhaps the vast majority of the more than 220 Government amendments are technical, but none of us doubts that substantial matters of principle are involved.
The simple purpose of a timetable motion—whether agreed between Front Benchers or imposed by the Government—is to curtail debate. The Government have done what they now do in all guillotine motions; they have made the debate on the free-standing guillotine motion part of the consideration of the Bill. That must be wrong. I have full sympathy for hon. Members who feel that their opportunity to discuss matters of importance to their constituencies is being reduced.
Such matters are also important to my constituency. The bombing campaigns that have cursed the nation for 30 years must animate the House to consider the very importance of the Ulster business that is before us, because it is not just their business; it ours, and a settlement is required not just for this island, but for another island as well.
The Minister of State at least put all the arguments for a guillotine, but he did not address the fundamental principle. I shall not take up the time of the House, but the motion involves a matter of principle. The Government have introduced 36 guillotines; some have had the agreement of Opposition Front Benchers, but the purpose has not been to seek consent, which is what the House wants. We want a settlement, but the traditions of the House allow those who oppose or seek to improve Government legislation the opportunity to express themselves to that end. The Government have set aside those traditions 36 times.
The Government are now reducing the opportunities to debate the matters that are most important to us. The guillotine motion, for which all the Government's supporters will vote, will reduce the debate to less than three hours. That is wrong, and every hon. Member knows that perfectly well. The Bill deserves more than a three-hour debate, yet there could be less time than that if there is a Division.
I have set the main objections in the context of the motion, but a wider principle is involved: 36 guillotine motions have denied the House its very purpose and reason to exist. This is Parliament; we do not constitute the Executive, other than by giving our consent to legislation. Such motions deny us the opportunity properly and appropriately to express that consent or to deny it.

Mr. David Trimble: This is not the first time that I have had the honour to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I entirely agree with him. We have always taken the view that guillotine motions are wrong in principle. The position of the House is an important matter, which should be vindicated. I do not intend to take much time, but I want to make a couple of points.
First, I want to amplify the point that I made in intervening on the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). I agree with the complaint that he and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) made about the Standing Committee. This is an important Northern Ireland Bill, so it is appropriate that the Committee that considered it should have been representative of all the main sections of opinion in Northern Ireland that are represented in the House. I expressed that view to the Minister earlier in the proceedings on the Bill. I told him that there should be broader representation, because it is important that hon. Members have an opportunity to debate the Bill in detail.
The hon. Member for North Antrim referred to the attacks taking place in Northern Ireland, all of which we deplore. He said that the attacks came from both sides. That is true, but many of them have come from people who would identify themselves as supporters of the hon. Member for North Antrim.
That fact casts a particular responsibility on the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to condemn the violence by people who describe themselves as his supporters. That is not to minimise the seriousness of the Stewartstown bomb and the Aghalee petrol bomb, which represent an extremely serious and worrying portent. As I said yesterday, the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic also has a particular responsibility. Terrorist elements are trying to attack the agreement for which 95 per cent. of his electorate voted, and he needs to redeem the promises that he has made over the past year.
On the issue before us, I want to draw out one point. This is an important Bill, as the Minister has said, and Members of the House have different views on it. As the shadow Secretary of State said, Her Majesty's Opposition abstained on Second Reading. We voted against, and the Social Democratic and Labour party voted for. That voting pattern may be reproduced on Third Reading—but

looking beyond the positions that, for a variety of reasons, people adopt to the detail of the Bill on Second and Third Reading, there is a similarity between the three parties. They support some parts of the Bill, but are uncomfortable with others and want them to be changed.
The desire of all three parties to engage in a serious debate to improve the Bill characterised the 40 constructive hours spent in Committee—and, as the Minister acknowledged, the Opposition parties made no attempt to delay proceedings or to obfuscate the matter. All desired a serious debate, and that same desire will be apparent on Report, when we want all the serious issues to be reconsidered and all those who were unable to be members of the Committee to contribute. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said, were there no guillotine the debate would still be unlikely to run for more than six hours, although it would probably run to a second day.
What on earth is wrong with giving this important Bill a second day? Why does it have to be rushed through the House now? It is not being rushed through today to allow those of my colleagues who wish to attend the 12 July celebrations to do so, although one could put that construction on the motion. I have reason to believe that the Government's initial wish was for the Bill to go on Report on the twelfth in the hope that none of us would be present—but that is by the way.
There is no reason why the debate could not have run to a second day, as would have been appropriate for a Bill of this size and importance. We could have had a serious debate without being rushed. As it is, we shall be rushed tonight and we may not consider the whole Bill, which is a sad way to complete a process that in Committee consisted of serious consideration of the issue by a wide range of parties. In these circumstances, it is sad that the Government have tabled a guillotine motion.

Mr. William Ross: All visitors to the House pass through St. Stephen's Hall, in which there is a depiction of the barons confronting King John. That was the first formidable effort to restrict the power of the Executive in those days, and the House is directly descended from that incident.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Magna Carta.

Mr. Ross: Magna Carta, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says.
Therefore, Members of the House have a duty not only to represent the views of their constituents, but to curb the excesses of the Executive and to call them to account. Guillotined Bills and timetable motions are an attempt to limit the capacity of all Members of the House to fulfil that duty, and no Member should lose sight of that important fact. As we all know, this is a Bill of great importance, for it will create a new police force for Northern Ireland at the behest not of the law abiding or those who want to remain in the United Kingdom, but of those who want to live under a rule different from the constitutional monarchy that we enjoy.
In the early stages of the Patten inquiry, I said that there was no complaint from members of the public that I could find when the Royal Ulster Constabulary investigated ordinary crime of whatever type and from whatever


source. In fact, everyone was glad to see the coppers arrive. Therefore, all the complaints that arose did not stem from the behaviour of the police in investigating ordinary crime, but related to their investigations of and opposition to terrorist crime. That is the real basis of the Bill. Those who were engaged in terrorism deeply resented the actions of the police service and the military in Northern Ireland and the force that had to be used to control that evil activity.
When the Bill is passed, as we all know it will be, the question will be whether it satisfies Irish nationalists of whatever stripe or description, never mind the IRA. That remains to be seen, but I suspect that they will find good excuses for not being satisfied. The Government set out their considered view of the Patten report when they published the Bill, and they have also set out their considered view on the need for the motion, but if they carefully considered what parts of Patten to implement and published a Bill on that basis, why did they accept amendments and give commitments to accept amendments? I believe that that agreement results from the torrent of complaint from the IRA, Sinn Fein, the Social Democratic and Labour party and fellow travellers in the Irish nationalist community. Indeed, IRA representatives are presently touring the United States to complain about the Bill.
In passing, I must say that I am not clear in my own mind about what any British police force has to learn about the use of minimal force from a nation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman some leeway for his preamble, but I remind him that we are discussing the allocation of time motion. His remarks seem to be more suited to a debate on Second or Third Reading.

Mr. Ross: As you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the opportunity to make such remarks on Second Reading has passed and, as a consequence of the motion, time will be so severely restricted that it will be impossible to make them on Third Reading. If I am not to have an opportunity to make such remarks, does not that show that the Government's timetable motion is creating serious defects and that Members of the House have difficulties in calling Ministers to account over how they deal with policing matters in Northern Ireland, which are matters of life and death to many of our constituents? Those matters should receive detailed consideration, which clearly will not be possible as a result of the severe restriction of the time available.
The Government also need time. We are prepared to make the most constructive suggestions and we want to be helpful. We want to explain where they have got it wrong and to give them an opportunity to correct their mistakes. We want them to respond in the fullest and most detailed terms, but, unfortunately, their own motion will prohibit that. It is only right that we should bring those matters to the attention of the House and, in particular, of the Government in the hope that they might go away and think again.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who are on the Front Bench, have been in Northern Ireland for some time. They know that the Bill represents a serious issue in the Province and a problem that will not go away.

We are to have a new police service in Northern Ireland—for reasons that I hope to cover later, I disagree with the new term—and we are told in the press that the Government have made some 60 moves in the direction of the SDLP. The Secretary of State says that it should be well satisfied, but it is not satisfied. It has tabled a raft of amendments that we are supposed to consider in the restricted period of a few hours this afternoon and evening.
At this stage in the proceeding, the Government have put before the House 46 pages of amendments. Surely we require more time to consider them than is being given to us, especially as the Bill is only 65 pages long. The Government say that not all the amendments are in their name, but the size of the Bill in relation to the number of amendments tabled shows the Government's willingness to say to Sinn Fein-IRA and the SDLP, "Tell us which way you want us to jump and we'll see what we can do for you." I cannot come to any other conclusion about why there are so many amendments.
I read somewhere that there were 258 Government amendments, and today I heard that there were 220. The figure of 254 has also been mentioned. There is such a multitude of amendments that I have not had time to count them. I may get an hour this afternoon to do so, and discover how many there are. I was not a member of the Committee, and may have a different point of view from that of my hon. Friends who were on it. It is well known that I believe that most of the RUC's problems with policing parades and other matters should have been resolved during the discussions on the agreement rather than at this late stage. The Minister tells us that these are mainly technical amendments. If they are technical amendments, the drafting must have been very sloppy in the first place. We should not have to consider technical amendments.
The Minister told us that the amendments were related to the change from "force" to "service". I have never thought that the police's job was to service the law. I thought that their job was to enforce the law, and to use the minimum force necessary to ensure that the law was kept. Now they will have to service the law, but I am not clear what that term is supposed to mean. No doubt the Minister, in his long-winded approach to the subject, will tell us what it means—at least I hope so, but I am living in hope rather than in expectation.
Given their majority, the Government will steamroller the Bill through the House this evening no matter what is said. It will go to the other place and may return to this House amended—or perhaps not much amended—presumably in the autumn. One thing is certain, when today's debate is over, the people of Northern Ireland will not be satisfied. They will not be happy about what the Government say about the Bill or with the Bill at all, because they understand that the Bill was created as a consequence of terrorist violence and nothing else. That was the only reason. If there were reasons to make minor changes to the police, that could have been done in the natural course of events. The Bill was unnecessary, and the Government know that. They are trying to conceal the failure at an earlier stage fully to appreciate the reasons for the Bill by steamrollering it through and driving it on regardless of the opposition of those of us who live in Northern Ireland. We have to live with the consequences of the Bill, and we are well aware of the problems that it will create downstream.
As is apparent to every hon. Member, the Government treat the House and the legislative process more and more as if they were running a commercial business, in which the directors and the management decide on a course of action and then go ahead with it. If business men are wrong, only the business suffers. Legislation is not like that: it deals with very different circumstances. Sometimes a measure that at first seems simple and straightforward turns out not to be so. Everyone in the House remembers the poll tax and what a wonderful idea that was. The basic contention was to connect the payment of taxes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going far too far away from the terms of the motion. I must direct him to come back to the point.

Mr. Ross: I respect your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am content to comply with it. I was trying to draw an analogy with what happened with the poll tax legislation, which seemed simple and straightforward at first, but which led to riots and all sorts of problems. That was also driven through the House with a large Government majority and had unforeseen consequences, although some foresaw them. Those who were in a minority in the House were eventually proved correct, as I believe they will be on this occasion. I simply wanted to draw the House's attention to a past error of judgment, and to ask hon. Members to reflect on whether an error of judgment has been made on this legislation, as I believe it has.
On matters relating to Northern Ireland, I am usually in a minority in this place. I have been in the House longer than most: only the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has been here longer than I. Like me, he can recall many occasions on which legislation was passed by acclamation. Those of us who objected were subsequently proved to be correct, and I am certain that the same will happen with this legislation. Any hon. Member who has been in the House for a few years realises that a debate in this Chamber is not a light matter: it serves a useful and fundamental purpose. When a Government introduce a Bill, they always have a natural and understandable desire to see that it is passed as soon as possible, no matter how long it is. Time and again, I have seen that the longer the debate goes on, the more likely it is that flaws in the legislation are exposed, and slowly but surely changes take place. When a Bill disappears from this place and then comes back, frequently changes have been made that improve it. Everyone applauds that, but that is not happening with this Bill.
Timetable motions, especially on Northern Ireland matters, should be opposed. Many hon. Members have never set foot in the Province, and know nothing about it. Their perception has been gained from media reports, newspapers, snapshots on the television, which is a poor way to build a policy or an opinion of a place, and above all from journalistic opinion. Journalists rarely sit in the middle of the road trying to give a clear and accurate picture of what is happening. They are always

biased. The Times used to say that opinion is free but the truth is sacrosanct, but that no longer seems to apply to the media at large.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I once again say to the hon. Gentleman that he must come back to the particular and get away from the general. I do not want to have to remind him again.

Mr. Ross: Sometimes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is necessary to draw analogies.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already opined to the hon. Gentleman what I think is necessary in the circumstances of this debate. I hope that he will accord with that.

Mr. Ross: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the help that you give me in reaching conclusions.
I believe that the Chamber is a counterweight to outside influences. It is the place where these matters must be discussed in detail, and that takes time. I remember when a Member of the House changed his mind after long discussions in Committee. If the debate is long and detailed enough, perceptions and opinions can change. Given the nature of the Bill, it is completely wrong to impose a timetable motion. We should have considered the Bill earlier in the week, and we should continue for much longer than will be possible. If we had more time, we could discuss the Bill in greater detail, change people's minds and end up with a more effective law enforcement agency in Northern Ireland.
It is no secret that I believe that the Bill is wrong. It will diminish the effectiveness of the RUC, and a debate would have exposed that. The time we are being allowed for debate is far too short. It is only when a Bill is considered calmly, logically and at length that people come to understand it and change their opinions, and support the necessary changes. The Bill will not fulfil its stated objectives. Whether the Government have unstated objectives, I do not know, but I am certain that time will reveal them.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I oppose the motion.
The Bill derives from the Belfast agreement; it is not simply the product of Patten. On Second Reading, I made it clear that I considered the Patten commission's report to be a faithful representation of the remit given to Patten by certain politicians in the Belfast agreement, although many of them want to wash their hands of it now. However, given that the agreement had its passage, as it were, during 1998, I think few hon. Members would not readily admit that this is the most controversial element of it, and has been paid considerable attention by the Northern Ireland community. The issue with which we shall deal this evening is therefore of great significance to the people of Northern Ireland. It cannot be dealt with lightly, and it cannot and should not be dealt with quickly.
It demeans the Government if they are seen not to be confident enough of their arguments to allow them to be fully debated here. For it is clear that the issues in the Bill will not be properly debated this evening: they are too many, and too great, to be considered adequately in the time allowed.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who has left the Chamber, has said outside it that he is delighted with the Bill. I am therefore surprised—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) like to repeat that, so that the Chair can hear it? I think not—but, like everything else that the hon. Gentleman says, it was substantially lacking in factual relevance.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann said publicly that he was delighted with the outcome of the Standing Committee's work. So he should be: it was he and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone who recommended to the people of Northern Ireland that they should support the Belfast agreement, within which the Patten commission's remit was given and of which the Bill is the outcome.
Intervening on my friend, the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), the right hon. Gentleman asked what amendments he had tabled. Any sensible Northern Ireland Member would recognise that there is enough to oppose in the Bill, by way of clause stand part, for the proper result to emerge. It is not necessary to amend a Bill that is so inherently disastrous for the police service in Northern Ireland: it is to be opposed, rather than amended.
The right hon. Gentleman then turned on my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), saying that those who were disrupting and perpetrating violence against the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland were supporters of his. If the right hon. Gentleman were a wee bit closer to the ground, he would recognise that the violence in Northern Ireland is being orchestrated by pro-agreement paramilitary organisations—the very same organisations with which the right hon. Gentleman walked into the talks shoulder to shoulder, and which supported him throughout the process.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying far from the motion. I ask him to return to its confines.

Mr. Robinson: I am happy to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if I have indeed strayed I have been referring to remarks made in the House, without challenge, by others during the debate.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is well known in Northern Ireland that two members of the Stormont Assembly, on the so-called loyalist side, represent terrorist organisations. It is they, with others, who are seen on the streets, and who are carrying out attacks on the police.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has absolutely nothing to do with the motion.

Mr. Robinson: I think that the issue has been dealt with properly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I feel that, as it was raised by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann without challenge, it was right for us to have an answer on the record.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) had the audacity to tell the House that there was sufficient time. Having been a member of the Standing Committee, he had every opportunity to say whatever he wanted to say during, I believe, 11 sittings. He now tells those of us

who were not allowed to be members of the Committee, and who have therefore not had the same opportunities, that there is enough time—time of which he will no doubt take part in order to have a further say.

Mr. Ingram: It might be helpful if the hon. Gentleman reminded us that the last time he was a member of a Standing Committee—the Committee considering the last Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, which became the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998—he attended only two sittings. I think I am correct in saying that.

Mr. Robinson: I have not the slightest idea what the Minister is talking about. [Interruption.] The debate will continue for some time, and we shall be able to return to the issue with the Minister.

Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman described my views on the guillotine as audacious. I thank him for the compliment, but surely he accepts that there was simply a difference of opinion. Members are perfectly entitled to have differing views. He himself has made important points, and I hope he recognises that I was not criticising him or his party for having a view different from mine.

Mr. Robinson: I did not suggest that the hon. Gentleman had attacked our view. What he said was that there was sufficient time for the issues to be debated. My party, however, sought representation on the Committee, and was deliberately refused that representation. Our only opportunity to deal with the issues with which the hon. Gentleman had so much time to deal in Committee is tonight's debate, and we are being deliberately denied that opportunity by a Government who are afraid to allow them to be debated properly here.
The Government may well suggest that there is very little time for the issues to be discussed further before the end of the Session. Of course, they left the debate until near the end of the Session because they did not want the details of the Bill to be revealed earlier, in case members of the Ulster Unionist Council saw what they were up to, and therefore formed a different opinion about the return to devolution in Northern Ireland.
One very good reason why we should have more time is the absence of the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor). He has not been able to come along because he is in Cyprus or somewhere. He clearly has such strong opinions on the issue that he did not want to interrupt whatever his business may be elsewhere. It was that right hon. Gentleman, however—this is relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker—who went to an Ulster Unionist Council meeting, and told that meeting that there was a piece of paper in his inside pocket that he would be able to produce if the Government did not stand by promises given to him. If we cut off tonight's debate, what opportunity will he have to come to the House and reveal for the first time the commitments that he was given—commitments that he said would be sufficient for the Ulster Unionist Council to allow—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant in allowing the hon. Gentleman to make the remarks that he has made in the context of the debate, but I must ask him again to return to the terms of the motion.

Mr. Robinson: I am dealing entirely with the issue of time. If a Member who is so central to the issue is not present, I would expect him to want time, in a resumed debate, allowing him to produce the evidence that he produced for the Ulster Unionist Council—evidence that he said would ensure the survival of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard my ruling. It is not a matter of what other Members should be doing in the debate; we want to hear what the hon. Gentleman wishes to contribute.

Mr. Robinson: I am grateful. I am sure that the House would agree.
The Government have nothing but the contempt of the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland for the way in which they have dealt with the whole issue of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. They have attempted to use it as a political issue in relation to the Belfast agreement. They have one minute been attempting to suggest to the Unionist community that the Royal Ulster Constabulary was safe in their hands and that, on that basis, they should support the right hon. Member for Upper Bann in resuming the devolution of powers to Northern Ireland; and, the next minute, they have pandered to the republican tradition in Northern Ireland and, as has been seen throughout the stages of the Bill, produced amendments to satisfy that republican element.
This debate—the charade that we are offered of just a few hours to debate a critical issue—reflects badly on the Government. I think that it will ensure that the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be hung around their neck as an example of how they reward those who have stood by and made sacrifices for the community. At the same time, it will be seen in stark contrast to the rewards that they have given to terrorists in putting them into government and releasing their prisoners.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): We have had an interesting debate, and I shall be relatively brief compared with some of the contributions.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has in these matters the merits of sincerity, which is palpable when he speaks on the subject, and of consistency. Although on this occasion he will understand that I cannot agree with him, I always respect his sincerity.
I come to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and, in so doing, rise to the defence of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), even though he does not agree with us on this occasion. I am sure that, when the hon. Gentleman reflects on what he said, he might regret it. He attacked the right hon. Gentleman for not having mentioned the republican bomb in Stewartstown.
I have to say—I think that the hon. Member for North Antrim knows it—that, just as the Government, he and other hon. Members condemn every terrorist activity, from wherever it comes, so does the right hon. Member for Bracknell. The right hon. Gentleman may have

omitted to mention that particular incident, but if the hon. Member for North Antrim consistently followed what the right hon. Gentleman has said on those matters, he would find that, like us, the right hon. Gentleman condemns all terrorist incidents, whether they happen in Aghalee or Stewartstown. I am sure that, when the hon. Gentleman has a cooler head, he will appreciate that that is the case.
The hon. Gentleman argued—it was repeated with greater force by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)—that the Government deprived them of a place on the Standing Committee. The Government do not allocate the places of the smaller parties on Standing Committees. It is not a question of the Government letting him down. Whatever representations he may have made—he referred to representations that had been made—would have been made within the arrangements for smaller parties. I understand that no representations were made through my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), who speaks on these matters for the Patronage Secretary.
Therefore, the idea that, cynically, out of fear, trepidation or whatever, we excluded the hon. Gentleman's party or, for that matter, the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) from membership of the Committee does not stand up to scrutiny. If the hon. Gentleman goes back over the record of what representations may have been made, he will find that they certainly were not made to the Government, so that simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: Before I do, let me make it clear that, because hon. Members are anxious to talk about the substance of the Bill, I do not intend to give way a great deal.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister explain what was mentioned by the leader of the official Unionists, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—that he had made representation? He said that he had brought to a Minister's attention the representation from the Democratic Unionist party and the representation from the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), and the reply was, "No, we are not having them on the Committee." To whom did he make his representations?

Mr. Howarth: It is my experience of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that, generally speaking, when asked to, he defends himself and his position very well. No doubt, when the occasion arises, the hon. Gentleman will tackle him on that very issue. I do not know of any representations that the right hon. Gentleman made, but I am sure that, if he said that he made them, he did. Where he made them, I have no idea.
The hon. and learned Member for North Down and the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) both referred to the number of amendments that has been tabled. If they scrutinise the amendments, as I am sure that they will have the opportunity to do, and take time to listen to the debate that they have spoken in, they will realise that something approaching 200 of those


amendments are consequential on the change of the words "police force" to "police service". Once we make such a change, it is necessary to go through the whole Bill and to make the necessary consequential changes.
I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for North Down would want to debate every occasion that those words are used in the Bill. I think that, even though he can be loquacious on occasions, it is highly unlikely. I am willing to accept that the hon. Member for East Londonderry probably would want to debate the same point over and again as many times as it is mentioned, but that is a matter between him and the occupant of the Chair, and you made your position clear on that matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If there were ever a demonstration of why the motion is necessary, it was the speeches of the hon. Members for East Londonderry and for Belfast, East. When anyone who is concerned about the matter consults the record of the debate and the number of times that they had to be brought to order by the occupant of the Chair, it will be clear that the Government were right to put the motion on the Order Paper as a precautionary measure. If it were ever necessary to demonstrate that the motion was justified, the two hon. Members to whom I have just referred demonstrated that amply. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put:-

The House divided: Ayes 354, Noes 143.

Division No. 254]
[6.28 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Breed, Colin


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Ainger, Nick
Browne, Desmond


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Buck, Ms Karen


Alexander, Douglas
Burden, Richard


Allan, Richard
Burstow, Paul


Allen, Graham
Butler, Mrs Christine


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary



Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cann, Jamie


Atkins, Charlotte
Casale, Roger


Austin, John
Caton, Martin


Ballard, Jackie
Cawsey, Ian


Barnes, Harry
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Barron, Kevin
Chaytor, David


Battle, John
Chidgey, David


Bayley, Hugh
Chisholm, Malcolm


Beard, Nigel
Clapham, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Begg, Miss Anne
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bennett, Andrew F
Clelland, David


Berry, Roger
Clwyd, Ann


Best, Harold
Coaker, Vernon


Betts, Clive
Coffey, Ms Ann


Blackman, Liz
Cohen, Harry


Blizzard, Bob
Coleman, Iain


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Colman, Tony


Borrow, David
Connarty, Michael


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cooper, Yvette


Bradshaw, Ben
Corbyn, Jeremy


Brake, Tom
Corston, Jean


Brand, Dr Peter
Cotter, Brian





Cousins, Jim
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cox, Tom
Hoyle, Lindsay


Crausby, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hurst, Alan


Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Iddon, Dr Brian



Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jamieson, David


Darvill, Keith
Jenkins, Brian


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davidson, Ian



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)



Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dean, Mrs Janet



Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dowd, Jim
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Drew, David
Keeble, Ms Sally


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Edwards, Huw
Kemp, Fraser


Efford, Clive
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Ellman, Mrs Louise



Etherington, Bill
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Khabra, Piara S


Fearn, Ronnie
Kidney, David


Fisher, Mark
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fitzpatrick, Jim
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Kirkwood, Archy


Follett, Barbara
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Foster, Don (Bath)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lammy, David


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Fyfe, Maria
Laxton, Bob


Galloway, George
Lepper, David


Gardiner, Barry
Leslie, Christopher


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Levitt, Tom


Gerrard, Neil
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Linton, Martin


Godman, Dr Norman A
Livsey, Richard


Godsiff, Roger
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Goggins, Paul
Llwyd, Elfyn


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lock, David


Gorrie, Donald
Love, Andrew


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McAvoy, Thomas


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McCabe, Steve


Grocott, Bruce
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Grogan, John
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gunnell, John
Macdonald, Calum


Hain, Peter
McDonnell, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McFall, John


Hancock, Mike
McIsaac, Shona


Hanson, David
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Harris, Dr Evan
Mackinlay, Andrew


Harvey, Nick
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McNamara, Kevin


Healey, John
McNulty, Tony


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
MacShane, Denis


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McWalter, Tony


Heppell, John
McWilliam, John


Hesford, Stephen
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hill, Keith
Mallaber, Judy


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hood, Jimmy
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hope, Phil
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)






Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Meale, Alan



Merron, Gillian
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Snape, Peter


Miller, Andrew
Soley, Clive


Moffatt, Laura
Southworth, Ms Helen


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moore, Michael
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moran, Ms Margaret
Steinberg, Gerry


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Stevenson, George


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stinchcombe, Paul



Stoate, Dr Howard


Mountford, Kali
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mudie, George
Stringer, Graham


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Swinney, John


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Norris, Dan



O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Olner, Bill
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Öpik, Lembit
Temple-Morris, Peter


Organ, Mrs Diana
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pearson, Ian
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Pendry, Tom
Timms, Stephen


Perham, Ms Linda
Tipping, Paddy


Pickthall, Colin
Todd, Mark


Pike, Peter L
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Plaskitt, James
Touhig, Don


Pond, Chris
Trickett, Jon


Pope, Greg
Truswell, Paul


Pound, Stephen
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Purchase, Ken
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Quinn, Lawrie
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Tyler, Paul


Rammell, Bill
Tynan, Bill


Rapson, Syd
Vis, Dr Rudi


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Walley, Ms Joan


Rendel, David
Ward, Ms Claire


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wareing, Robert N


Rogers, Allan
Watts, David


Rooney, Terry
Webb, Steve


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Welsh, Andrew


Rowlands, Ted
White, Brian


Roy, Frank
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Ruane, Chris
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ruddock, Joan



Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Winnick, David


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wood, Mike


Salter, Martin
Woolas, Phil


Sanders, Adrian
Worthington, Tony


Sarwar, Mohammad
Wray, James


Sawford, Phil
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Shaw, Jonathan
Wyatt, Derek


Sheerman, Barry



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shipley, Ms Debra
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Mr. Mike Hall


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Baldry, Tony


Amess, David
Beggs, Roy


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Bercow, John


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Beresford, Sir Paul


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Blunt, Crispin





Body, Sir Richard
Loughton, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Luff, Peter


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Brady, Graham
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Brazier, Julian
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Browning, Mrs Angela
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Maginnis, Ken


Burns, Simon
Major, Rt Hon John


Butterfill, John
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Cash, William
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
May, Mrs Theresa



Moss, Malcolm


Chope, Christopher
Nicholls, Patrick


Clappison, James
Norman, Archie


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Ottaway, Richard



Paice, James


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Paisley, Rev Ian


Collins, Tim
Pickles, Eric


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Prior, David


Curry, Rt Hon David
Randall, John


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Robathan, Andrew


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Robertson, Laurence


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Evans, Nigel
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Faber, David
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fabricant, Michael
Ruffley, David


Fallon, Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Flight, Howard
Shepherd, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fox, Dr Liam
Soames, Nicholas


Fraser, Christopher
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gale, Roger
Spicer, Sir Michael


Garnier, Edward
Spring, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Steen, Anthony


Gray, James
Streeter, Gary


Green, Damian
Swayne, Desmond


Greenway, John
Syms, Robert


Grieve, Dominic
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hawkins, Nick
Thompson, William


Hayes, John
Townend, John


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Tredinnick, David


Horam, John
Trend, Michael


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Hunter, Andrew
Tyrie, Andrew


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Walter, Robert


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Waterson, Nigel


Jenkin, Bernard
Wells, Bowen


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whitney, Sir Raymond



Whittingdale, John


Key, Robert
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Wilkinson, John


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Wilshire, David


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lansley, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Leigh, Edward
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Letwin, Oliver



Lidington, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Stephen Day and


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Mr. Peter Atkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill—

Timetable

1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

(2) Proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and brought to a conclusion (if not previously concluded) seven hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

Questions to be put

2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on the Bill to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.

(2) The Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(4) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put under sub—paragraph (2)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

Miscellaneous

3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply at today's sitting to proceedings to which this Order applies.

4. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill.

6. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

7. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to the Bill.

Supplemental Orders

8. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (if not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.

9. If at today's sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Orders of the Day — Police (Northern Ireland) Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 3

DISTRICT POLICING PARTNERSHIP SUB-GROUPS FOR BELFAST

—(1) The district council for Belfast shall establish a sub-group of its district policing partnership for each police district established under section 20(2).

(2) The function of each sub-group shall be to provide views to the district commander of the sub-group's police district and to the Board on any matter concerning policing of that district.

(3) Each sub-group shall consist of at least six members of the partnership.

(4) The members of a sub-group shall be appointed by the partnership.

(5) The members of a sub-group shall appoint a member to act as chairman of the sub-group.

(6) If they are unable to agree on whom to appoint as chairman, the partnership shall appoint the chairman.

(7) The code issued under section 19 may contain guidance as to the exercise by sub-groups of their functions.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 14, in clause 14, page 7 line 32, after "establish", insert—
'within 6 months from the commencement date of this Act'.
Amendment No. 56, in clause 15, page 8, line 3, leave out "section 14(1)" and insert—
'any part of Part III of this Act'.
Amendment No. 59, in clause 16, page 8, line 44, leave out "have regard to" and insert "comply with".
Amendment No. 60, in clause 19, page 9, line 24, leave out "may" and insert "shall".
Amendment No. 61, in page 9, line 25, after "and", insert "may".
Amendment No. 16, in page 9, line 34, leave out sub-paragraph (b) and insert—
'(b) a duty to hold all meetings of the district policing partnership in public;'.
Amendment No. 17, in page 9, line 40, leave out from "police" to "for" in line 41 and insert—
'service of their functions and operations in the district to be put by members of the district policing partnership and by members of the public'.
Amendment No. 62, in page 10, line 8, at end add—
'(3A) Nothing in this section shall require a district commander or his nominee to answer any question or disclose any information which compromises effective policing.'.
Amendment No. 63, in clause 54, page 27, line 37, at end add—
'(j) the effectiveness of district policing partnerships in the carrying out of their functions;
(k) the level of public satisfaction with the performance of individual district policing partnerships.'.


Government amendment No. 213.
Amendment No. 6, in schedule 1, page 37, line 30, leave out—
'as far as is practicable'.
Amendment No. 8, in page 37, line 33, after "consult", insert—
'for a period not longer than three months'.
Amendment No. 7, in page 37, line 38, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
Amendment No. 9, in page 38, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (9) and insert—
'(9) The members of the board shall, at their first meeting, elect a chair and a vice-chair; the appointments will not be confirmed unless the First and Deputy First Ministers agree to them; the Board shall ensure that—

(a) the offices of chair and vice-chair are at all times held by members of different political parties;
(b) a person is appointed to the office of chair and vice-chair for a term of 12 months at a time or, where that period is shorter than 12 months, for a period ending with the date of the next Assembly elections, and
(c) the office of chair is held by each of the four largest parties represented in the Assembly after the last assembly election.'.


Government amendments Nos. 215 and 216.
Amendment No. 10, in page 38, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (c).
Amendment No. 11, in page 40, line 45, after—
'consult', insert for a period not longer than three months'.
Amendment No. 303, in page 41, line 25, at end insert—
'(1A) The Secretary of State shall remove a person from office as an independent or political member of the Board if satisfied that—'.
Amendment No. 12, in page 41, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (c).
Amendment No. 304, in page 41, line 29, at end insert—
'( ) any organisation to which he is linked has failed to satisfy any of the four factors set out in Section 3(9)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998;
( ) any organisation to which he is linked has failed to begin the decommissioning of arms and explosives in a manner verified by the Commission referred to in Section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.'.
Amendment No. 13, in page 41, line 44, leave out sub-paragraph (c).
Amendment No. 305, in page 41, line 45, at end add—
'(d) he has at any time been convicted of a scheduled offence under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 or Part VII of the Terrorism Act;
(e) he has at any time been convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere of any offence and has had passed on him a sentence of imprisonment (whether suspended or not);

(f) the political party of which he is a member is linked to any organisation to which he is linked has failed to begin the decommissioning of arms and explosives in a manner verified by the Commission referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.'.
Government amendment No. 218.
Amendment No. 19, in schedule 3, page 48, line 29, after "power", insert—
'within 6 months of the commencement of this Act'.
Amendment No. 20, in page 49, line 3, after "council", insert—
'within one month of receipt of the nominations'.
Amendment No. 21, in page 49, line 18, at end add
'; before making such appointments the Council shall satisfy itself that it has taken all reasonable steps to make the district community aware that nominations are due to be made, that it has invited applications from that community and that, following thorough consideration of all applications, that the persons nominated, so far as is practicable, reflect that community.'.
Amendment No. 306, in page 50, line 10, at end insert—
'(2A) The Board or the council, with the approval of the Board, shall remove a person from office as a political or independent member of a DPP if satisfied that—

(a) he is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means;
(b) the political party of which he is a member is linked to an organisation that has failed to begin the decommissioning of arms and explosives in a manner verified by the Commission referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997;'.


Amendment No. 307, in page 50, line 24, leave out "an independent" and insert "a".
Amendment No. 22, in page 52, line 2, after first "may", insert—
'with the agreement of the Board'.

Mr. Ingram: I said at the fourth sitting of the Committee on 20 June that the Government were considering Patten's recommendation No. 28 that there should be four sub-groups of the district policing partnership in Belfast. I said that, if the Government decided to amend the Bill—we indicated that we were considering doing so—we would do so on Report. New clause 3 will make that amendment.
The Government concluded that, with an area the size of Belfast, it made sense to establish not four separate DPPs, as some have called for, but four sub-groups of the Belfast DPP, to be established by the council. Each sub-group is to consist of at least six members of the partnership, appointed by the partnership.
The Policing Board's code of practice under clause 19 will cover the operation of those sub-groups. Their function will be to provide views to the police and to the partnership. As the new clause stands, it refers in line 4 to "the Board". That should, of course, be "the partnership". That will be corrected in the other place.
By tabling the new clause, we have implemented Patten's recommendation in paragraph 6.27 of the commission's report, but we have done so in a way that recognises the concerns that have been expressed about


the make-up of those sub-groups and how their role will tie in with that of the Belfast DPP. On that basis, I ask the House to accept the new clause.

Mr. David Trimble: The Minister mentioned the relationship between the sub-groups and the Belfast DPP as a whole. To what extent will the sub-groups work with the partnership and to what extent will they take over functions from the partnership? Those questions raise a series of issues on which the new clause gives no information, but which are matters of great concern to us. The Minister should deal with those issues in some detail.

Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman because it is important for hon. Members to understand the way in which the DPPs will operate, which is in terms of the codes of practice that will be laid down by the Policing Board and conditioned by the Secretary of State's consideration of how they are actually operating. For instance, if a district is not delivering as it should, the Secretary of State will involve himself in that area.
Let me deal with the specific point raised by the right hon. Gentleman; the four sub-groups will report to the Belfast DPP and their work will be conditioned by the other clauses under which the DPPs come under the scrutiny of both the Policing Board and the Secretary of State. They will not be four entities in their own right, but four sub-groups that report to the central DPP.

Mr. Trimble: I apologise if I have not got the details right, but the new clause states:
The function of each sub-group shall be to provide views to the district commander of the sub-group's police district.
When one compares that to clause 16, which covers the general functions of DPPs, it is in line with clause 16(1)(a). Is it intended that the sub-groups simply take over from the Belfast DPP in that function only, and consequently will have no function in regard to clause 16(1)(a)-(e)? If that is the case, it would be well for the House to know that, However, the language that the Minister used implied that the sub-groups will take over all the functions of the DPPs and simply report to the Belfast partnership.

Mr. Ingram: No. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that that would not be the case. They would be not separate entities in their own right, but four sub-groups reporting to the DPP, conditioned obviously by the way in which the board interfaces with that and the way in which the Secretary of State can, in consultation with the board and under his own powers, deal with it.
The sub-groups will be an integral part of the Belfast DPP and will report to that district partnership. It is important to understand that they will have purely consultative functions. All the functions of the Belfast DPP remain as for the other DPPs. There is no difference between Belfast DPP and the other equivalent DPPs that will be set up under the structures envisaged. The sub-groups have no role in the local policing plan for Belfast. That remains the responsibility of the Belfast DPP. In that sense, the groups are consultative.
The right hon. Gentleman has concerns about the way in which the groups could have developed. Clearly, there was an argument that there should have been four separate

entities in that area. That is the way that some people interpreted Patten; that is not what Patten said, and we have been faithful to what he said. I hope that I have given the right hon. Gentleman assurances about the way in which the sub-groups of the DPP will function.
Government amendment No. 213 is a consequential amendment arising from one that was accepted in Committee on the membership of the direct rule Policing Board. Columns 38 to 45 of the Official Report of Standing Committee B contain references to that matter. The Committee accepted that, during direct rule, there should be between 14 and 19 members on the Policing Board. The amendment alters schedule 1(3)(2) to reflect the fact that, instead of one number, there is now a set of numbers. We want a sliding-scale approach. On that basis, I ask the House to accept the amendment.
Government amendments Nos. 215 and 216 honour a commitment that I made to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) in Committee—I said in column 94 of the Official Report of Standing Committee B that I would table amendments on Report. These amendments affect paragraph (4)(5) of schedule 1, which sets out the provisions for removal from the board during direct rule. Amendment No. 215 provides that removal for a criminal conviction applies to convictions after the date of appointment.
Amendment No. 216 adds to that provision by enabling the Secretary of State to remove a person from the board for non-disclosure of a criminal conviction at the time of appointment. We will want to table similar amendments in the other place for a board set up under the devolved structure. Here, we are dealing only with that set up under the direct rule structure. Similar amendments were made and accepted by the Committee on exactly this issue in relation to the DPPs, as can be seen from column 212 of the Official Report. I ask the House to accept Government amendments Nos. 215 and 216. They honour commitments made in Committee.
On Government amendment No. 218, in Committee on Tuesday 27 June—Official Report columns 114 to 118—I said that the Government would produce amendments to clarify the position on quorums both for appointments of the second and subsequent chairperson and vice-chairperson posts, which are dealt with in schedule 1(17)(2), and the numbers required to determine an inquiry under paragraph (17)(4), which of course relates to a board set up under a devolved Government. Government amendment No. 218 meets that commitment and I ask the House to accept it.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I shall speak to the amendments that stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench—amendments Nos. 303 to 307. In the limited time available to the House due to the guillotine motion, I shall restrict my remarks to those amendments, which centre on who should sit on the Policing Board and on the district policing partnerships.
It should be common ground on both sides of the House and in all parts of the House that it cannot be right and proper for people who have committed violent criminal and terrorist offences, or who are associated with terrorist groups that have not entered a ceasefire, to sit on the board or the partnerships.
I hope that it is not necessary to dwell at any length on how security sensitive sitting on the board or the partnerships will be. Royal Ulster Constabulary officers,


and for that matter other members of the security forces and Ministers, would be put in an impossible position if people were sitting on the partnerships and the board who were not committed to peaceful means of pursuing their political ends. If officers refused to give information to the board or partnership because they were scared of the security implications, the very working of the board and the workings of the partnerships would be put in doubt. The House should accept our amendments. It is inconceivable that such people should be involved in the board or the partnerships.
Let me expand a little: first, we are insisting that political representatives—elected politicians—who are associated with paramilitaries can sit on the board or the partnerships only if the paramilitaries to whom they are inextricably linked have started properly and comprehensively to decommission their illegally held arms and explosives. The Minister will confirm that they are legally obliged to do so under the Belfast agreement, which they signed.
Whereas I would have no objection to the names of people who are to sit on the board and the partnerships being made public, I feel that they should not be able to take their seats until their paramilitary associates have moved considerably towards fulfilling their obligations under the agreement to decommission all their illegally held arms and explosives.
Secondly, anyone sitting on the board or on a partnership must, both in practice and in word, have renounced violence in all its forms for good. I note that that applies to members of the board and of the partnerships who are not elected representatives; obviously, it must also apply to those who are elected.
7 pm
Probably the most important aspect of our amendments is that which relates to people who—in simple layman's language—are committed terrorists. It seems wrong that anyone who has been found guilty of committing a terrorist offence should sit on the board or a partnership. When the Bill was published, it was made clear that, although elected representatives who had committed scheduled offences could sit on those bodies, lay members who had committed such offences could not do so. That was changed in Committee, as the Minister will confirm.
That is regrettable. It is wrong that someone who was a committed terrorist can sit on a police board or body. I hope that, when the Minister reflects on that point, he will agree and that our amendments will be accepted. I offer the Minister and the Secretary of State a gentle warning that, if the amendments are not passed, there will be no confidence in the new policing system—neither in the boards nor the partnerships. The partnerships will not work properly and security will be put at risk in the Province and on the mainland; the Minister is responsible for security in the Province and I know that is the last thing that he wants. I hope that he will realise that our amendments are moderate, sensible and realistic; they should be incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. John McDonnell: I shall be brief, so that we can move on to other matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) said that many of the amendments are technical, and indeed they are. The amendments that I have tabled are straightforward. They would provide further reassurance to those people—in the House and elsewhere—who are concerned because the Bill does not fully reflect the recommendations of the Patten report, either in regard to openness and transparency or in ensuring the implementation of several issues relating to the establishment of district policing partnerships and the Policing Board.
The amendments would set a timetable for the DPPs—for the commencement of their powers, for their nominations and appointments and for the consultations held by the Secretary of State on those appointments. The second thrust of the amendments is to ensure that there is openness and transparency in the operation of the DPPs. They provide that the partnerships meet in public, that members of the public can put questions to the district police commander, and that there is full and open consultation on policies that have regard to the overall community.
The amendments would ensure that the composition of the DPPs is balanced and that the appointments of the chair and vice-chair of the board are made with the maximum involvement and consultation and have the support of all parties in the Assembly—and, especially, of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The amendments would strengthen the powers of the board in the establishment of DPPs.
The amendments are technical and relatively uncontentious. I welcome this opportunity for the Government to consider those matters before the Bill makes its way to the other place. The amendments strengthen the commitment to openness and transparency, while securing a timetable for the implementation of the Bill's provisions on DPPs.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I want to speak to amendments Nos. 56 and 59 to 63. They have been tabled to tidy up the fairly flawed provisions on district policing partnerships. It will come as no secret to Ministers that I oppose the whole concept of such partnerships as detailed in the Bill.
We all know that the lowest tier of government is the most difficult place in which to control political ambition. The DPPs will be devised so that they reflect the electoral strengths of district councils, but individuals from those areas will be added to them. Such is the spread—or lack of spread—of population across the political divide in some parts of Northern Ireland, that the lowest common denominator will rule the day if we run with these DPPs. Such is the progress of the Bill that that is inevitable.
We want to put some constraints and controls on the DPPs. Clause 15 provides that if the Secretary of State
is satisfied that a district council has failed to comply with…section 14(1)
he can take certain steps to remedy the matter. That power is not broad enough, although I am not usually someone who argues for more powers for the Secretary of State. Although it appears that the provision places that condition only on district councils, I do not believe that is what would happen.
The political members of DPPs will come from the district councils; they will be nominated and selected under the d'Hondt system. If there is constant disruption


and the DPPs do not fulfil a positive and constructive function, there should be some redress. It may not be possible to seek such redress from the DPPs, but it should be possible to ensure that district councils are subject to responsibilities and constraints for those whom they nominate to represent them on DPPs.
We suggest that the narrow provision that applies only to section 14(1) should be deleted and that the conditions that should apply should extend to the whole of part III. That would ensure that community activists such as those in the Omagh district—to whom I referred in Committee—who work voluntarily with the police, trying to represent society so that policing can function, are not bullied and browbeaten—if not physically beaten—by members of Sinn Fein, led by a Sinn Fein councillor. I gave full details of that incident in Committee, so I shall not repeat them.
Amendments Nos. 59, 60 and 61 are technical. I hope that the Government will accept them because they tidy up the Bill. Amendment No. 59 would amend clause 16, which says that the district policing partnerships
shall have regard to a code of practice.
We want them to "comply with" a code of practice. I think that in fact they must be bound to comply with a code of practice—otherwise, why would we have a code of practice?
Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 would amend clause 19, which says:
The Board may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, issue and from time to time revise a code of practice…
I do not believe that it was intended for the board to have an option whether or not to provide and issue a code of practice. I believe that the wording that was intended—our amendment would achieve this—was:
The Board shall, with the consent of the Secretary of State, issue and from time to time revise a code of practice
and so on.
Most of our amendments are technical, and I hope that the Government will take them into consideration as a means of tightening up the legislation. I also hope that the Minister will consider the too, too narrow basis on which the Secretary of State is to make a judgment as to how district councils fulfil their function. It is not just that they have a responsibility to appoint political members to the DPPs, but that they have a responsibility to ensure that those members whom they do appoint fulfil the functions and the conditions that are contained in the rest of part III.
I shall turn briefly to the amendments that originated from the Conservative Front Bench, and simply and without further elaboration say that they appeal to us. We believe that they reflect some of those things that are necessary if DPPs are not to become the focus for dissension and disruption and, indeed, for the impeding of police in the execution of their duties to the whole of society in the areas concerned.
The Government will not be surprised, therefore, to hear me say that I am totally opposed to what is contained in new clause 3. I do not want to suggest that this is a sleight of hand, but if it is not, it is the next best thing to that. It is very clearly stated in clause 14:
Each district council shall establish for its district a body to be known as the district policing partnership.
It makes no sense whatever that Belfast, any more than Craigavon, Derry City or any other larger urban area, should be subdivided in terms of its district policing partnership differently from what happens within the city council itself.
7.15 pm
The Government may argue that because Belfast has in excess of 500,000 people, and as four local areas of command meet within the city, there should be four sub-committees of the district policing partnership. I hope that the Government will explain why they think that it would be a good thing, in a city that is divided and ghettoised as a result of 30 years of violence, to have one area of the city with a sub-committee that will deal with an almost exclusively republican population and another area with a sub-committee that will deal with an almost exclusively Unionist population.
Is it not the desire of the Government that we move forward—that people stop thinking rigidly, antagonistically and confrontationally in terms of their own tradition? Is it not a fact that people should be reflecting on how the city council area of Belfast can be policed in a way that ensures uniformity, consistency and fair play for each and every citizen? If the Government—I doubt that they will dissent from what I have just suggested—believe that that is the case, why on earth would they want to subdivide a district policing partnership in which huge differences of opinion will have to be accommodated, and can be accommodated only if the individual members are willing to work constructively together?
If there are to be sub-committees, something needs to be said about whether they represent exclusively the tradition that dominates the area that a sub-committee represents, or whether the sub-committees would themselves have some sort of d'Hondt formulation, whereby each would reflect the main DPP overall—but the Bill quite simply does not do that. Instead, it panders, and panders dangerously, to sectarian and partisan points of view. That is a danger. We were given the impression on Second Reading and in Committee—indeed, until we saw new clause 3—that that would not happen. That is one reason why we should have more time to discuss the Bill, because this sort of surprise is more than a surprise—it is an inherent danger for the whole of society in Northern Ireland if, merely to satisfy a sectarian or political demand, we divide our population in this way.
If the Minister wants to find justification in Patten, I should draw attention to the fact that one thing that Patten made very clear was that the RUC was to be a unitary police service. It will not be a unitary police service if it is to be divided into 26—plus now another three in Belfast—virtually autonomous areas, none of which, under the proposals in the Bill, has any conjunction with surrounding local areas of command. If the divisional police stratum of command had remained, the local areas of command would have been conjoined to a degree. We have to remember that it was the present Chief Constable who proposed that divisional areas should be done away with. If we are to do away with divisional areas, the Chief Constable, to put it bluntly, has no right to do away with regional areas. A larger number of local areas of command could be coalesced under a regional command structure.
I hope that I have demonstrated not only the folly and the inept drafting but the inherent danger that derives from the new clause. I do not believe that an area of half a million people is too large to be dealt with under one body, just as every other council area is. If the Minister believes that there is some justification for what he


proposes, he has to tell us how he will ensure that in an area such as republican west Belfast, predominantly Sinn Fein influence is not exerted on the police. Similarly for other parts of Belfast, where there is a different influence, the Minister has to explain to us what precautions he will put in place.
The new clause is dangerous, especially for an urban area such as Belfast where crime does not observe any boundary. The drug trafficking that the Minister will hear me speak about again and again and all the other social abuses, such as protection rackets and everything else, are not sicknesses that observe boundaries. The germ of criminality spreads far and wide across the boundaries.
I ask the Minister to consider not pressing this particular new clause to a vote this evening. It has been sprung on us, so we have not had time to consider it. It is full of danger, and the Minister would do well to look again at whether what is being created could be the catalyst for dissension within the city of Belfast.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: I have been fairly sympathetic to the idea of DPPs, and I find new clause 3 logical, in the sense that it fulfils some of the promises made in Committee. However, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) rightly highlights the danger of a compartmentalisation of police operations along the sectarian lines that he described. That would not be good for the effectiveness of the police. So I hope that the Minister can reassure us by explaining how the mechanisms in the Bill will ensure that compartmentalisation does not occur.
The other important point that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone made related to amendments Nos. 59, 60 and 61. We had an extensive debate in Committee on the subject of amendment No. 59, and we did not receive a satisfactory reply. Why do the DPPs need only to have regard to the code rather than to comply with it? As the hon. Gentleman said, either it is a code of practice or it is not. I do not see it as guidelines. The Minister would be well advised to consider accepting amendment No. 59 and recognising that the most effective code of practice is one that does not have to be bent to different circumstances: one that fits all circumstances. It may be more difficult to introduce such a code, but I assure the Minister that it will be an awful lot more messy if various DPPs justify exempting themselves from the details of the code on the grounds of the words "have regard to". They might simply say, "We were not forced to comply with the code; it was simply a guideline and we have handled it accordingly." The Minister should respond to that and to the sensible clarifications in amendments Nos. 60 and 61.
I have been slightly critical of the Government, but I thank the Minister for having listened and introduced amendments Nos. 215 and 216, as he promised he would in Committee. The amendments make it clear that some categories of individual do not have a place in the process of policing in Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 215 will exclude those who have failed to disclose a criminal offence, and amendment No. 216 will exclude those who commit an offence after being appointed. It is right that they should be excluded, and I am glad that the changes that we requested have been made.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) raised an issue in the group of amendments tabled by the official Opposition. If one area was not sufficiently philosophically clarified in Committee with regard to where the Government stand, it is this. Although I have a view different from that expressed by the right hon. Member for Bracknell, it would be helpful to hear clearly why the Government are comfortable with the opportunity that various people who have clearly been involved in illegal actions will have to serve on the new bodies. For me, it is about forgiveness, trust and acting in good faith. If those things are not present, the whole process will not work anyway, and I have no problem with expressing that again. The right hon. Member for Bracknell has been clear about his reservations, as has the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor).
I am comfortable with moving forward on the basis that I have just described. It would help if the Minister stated unequivocally that the Government share my view, or that they have some other rationale. It would be helpful to have that on the record, not least because many people have exactly the same reservations as the right hon. Member for Bracknell expressed.

Mr. Trimble: I rise to support the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) on new clause 3. It really ought to be considered again. We have grave concerns about it. Earlier, I asked the Minister just what the relationship between the sub-groups and the partnership would be. I did not appear to get a clear answer from him, despite the notes that were passed to him. Perhaps, now that he has had time to collect his thoughts more fully on the issue, he will go into the relationship between one and the other in greater detail. That ought to be teased out at length rather than rushed into the Bill at this last minute.
The Minister must recognise that there is real concern on our Benches that the new clause is a means of returning to the original proposal, to which we took strong exception, that Belfast should be split into four DPPs. We thought that that was a very serious mistake that would have serious consequences for the effectiveness of policing in the area. It would sectarianise policing in Belfast, and that would be a retrograde step.
7.30 pm
New clause 3 brings the danger that the Government, having realised that the original proposal was mistaken and having moved to a more sensible position, are now heading back by a roundabout route to their original mistake. That is why we need to know much more. This bears particularly on two of the amendments that we have mentioned.
In reply to my intervention, the Minister referred to the code of practice. We would love to see the code of practice being an effective safeguard in this matter, but the Bill does not make it so. The code of practice is something that the board may make; it is under no duty, as the Bill is drafted, to do so. If the board does make a code of practice, the DPPs are simply to "have regard to" it. "Have regard to" is a fairly weak link on this matter.
Our amendments would put the board under a duty to make a code of practice and require the DPPs to comply with it. They would bring about precisely the situation that the Minister hinted at in reply to my intervention, by


saying that the code of practice could make provisions which would regulate these matters. It cannot regulate them unless there is a duty to make the code of practice and a duty to comply with it. From the point of view of achieving what the Minister himself set out, he should accept our amendments.
I wish to make some general points, touching on the existence of DPPs and on district council areas as the relevant local area of command in policing terms. One wonders about the coherence of that idea. In Northern Ireland we have 26 district councils, some of them very small. At the other end of the spectrum, we have larger ones, such as Belfast. I hesitate, lest I incur the wrath of my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, to point out that Belfast has a population of 300,000, not 500,000, unless my hon. Friend knows something about changes to Belfast's boundaries that I do not know.
The borough that I represent, Craigavon, has a population of 100,000. Lisburn has a population of over 100,000. Derry city has a population of over 100,000. Is there so much difference between 100,000 and 300,000? Why, then, break up Belfast? The borough of Craigavon has two local areas of command, the sub-divisional area of Portadown and the sub-divisional area for Lurgan. From what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said, I have the impression that there may be similar arrangements within Derry city council as well. There is a question here about consistency.
Then there is the question of what happens if, for example, there is a change in district council boundaries. This legislation relates to the number of district councils. Although no change in their number has been proposed, I have seen speculation in the press. For example, there was an interesting proposal in the editorial column of The Irish News several months ago suggesting that, instead of 26 councils, there should be only 14 or 15 in Northern Ireland. I do not know who inspired the editor of The Irish News to write that; it was certainly not me. Let us say for the sake of argument that that happened. The legislation would then automatically roll through and reduce Northern Ireland to 15 or 16 local areas of command and 15 or 16 DPPs.
I notice that heads are nodding on the Government Front Bench. I hesitate to say anything about how they are nodding! I take it that they are nodding in agreement and that the situation I have described is a consequence that the Government are entirely comfortable with.
That leads one to wonder why we have this arrangement. The Minister knows that one of our concerns about the district council areas being the local areas of command for policing is that there is then no tier within the police service between the local areas of command and headquarters in Belfast, or wherever it happens to be. We are concerned, as are others, about the effectiveness of policing; and this situation exposes a serious danger of a weakness in the command structure within the police service, a greater tendency for the local areas to act independently, and consequently a greater danger that the police officer in charge of each local area will be under undue pressure from a politically motivated DPP. That danger would be minimised if we had an effective structure within the police service.
I know that over the years there has been an argument about the divisional command. Stripping out the divisional command has been suggested; from time to time even her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has referred to that. Why not, then, provide a regional structure with, say, the equivalent of two or three assistant chief constables grouping the local areas of command so as to provide an effective structure? It is important that, as Patten recommended, we retain a unitary structure within the police service. That is endangered by the proposals before us. I should like to hear the Minister directly address that point.
Another matter of concern at the other end of the spectrum is local areas. We have an extensive structure of local police and community liaison groups. Obviously, with that structure, the community police liaison committees are somewhat uneven, but they bring local communities together, particularly communities that have significant problems. I do not wish to identify the area in question, but in my constituency I know of two housing estates with serious problems. They have formed their own CPLC, which brings together a number of community groups that interact with the local police officers very effectively.
Such CPLCs will disappear. Clause 16(1)(c) says that the DPPs
shall make arrangements for obtaining—
the views of the public about matters concerning the policing of the district.
It is possible within those terms to make arrangements to hear the views of people in particular localities. That should be encouraged. Perhaps it could be covered in a code of practice, but if the code of practice does not have to be made and is not binding, there is not much point in making that provision.
I worry about all the good people in a number of localities who are engaged in handling serious problems in their neighbourhoods. In dealing with criminality and anti-social activity, which are serious problems in some areas, they will now find that the structure they have depended on to try to improve policing in their area will disappear and be replaced by an excessively politicised structure at district council level that does not effectively reach down into local communities.
It is not good enough to say that community groups can go to see the DPP. That does not meet the need. I am reluctant to go into greater detail, because we are so short of time, but there is a serious gap in the legislation, unless it is properly covered by codes of practice. I have heard nothing about that, however, and my colleagues who were on the Committee recall no discussion there dealing specifically with the matter. As I said at the beginning, unless those codes of practice are binding on DPPs and it is mandatory for the board to make them, they will not be effective; they will not be a tool to ensure that this local layer is in place and that the Minister's assurances on the sub-groups in Belfast are implemented.

Mr. William Thompson: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 62 and 63, tabled by the Ulster Unionist party.
Amendment No. 62 deals with the great danger that we see in the district policing partnership, which we believe will put the district police commander under great pressure, take up a great deal of his time and, indeed,


make policing more difficult than it is now. Hence amendment No. 62 would insert a new subsection, which states:
Nothing in this section shall require a district commander or his nominee to answer any question or disclose any information which compromises effective policing.
Although community relations and seeking the views of the community are useful, they should not in any way compromise the effectiveness of the police in the area. That is why we tabled the amendment.
Amendment No. 63 is designed to ensure that the Policing Board would produce a yearly report on the effectiveness of policing. That report should also include comments on the effectiveness of the district police partnerships, how they operate, how they are received and how they affect good policing in a particular area. The amendment would make it part of the board's remit to report on
the effectiveness of district policing partnerships,
and on
the level of public satisfaction with the performance of individual district policing partnerships.
That is essential. There should be continual supervision of the district policing partnerships so that they do not compromise proper and effective policing.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The reasoned amendment on Second Reading tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) expressed the Conservative party's deep anxieties about the prospect of the political representatives of paramilitary organisations sitting on the policing board and the district policing partnerships without the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives having started. We also expressed our anxieties about inadequate safeguards against people convicted of terrorist offences serving on the Policing Board or the DPPs. We did not vary our stance on Second Reading or in Committee and we have not done so on Report.
Earlier, my right hon. Friend made perfectly clear who should not serve on the bodies and why they should not serve on them. He spoke in support of amendments No. 303 to 307, and we were subsequently pleased to receive the support of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and the Ulster Unionist party for those five amendments. At no stage this evening—perhaps we will not hear it at any stage—have we heard any convincing rebuttal of the arguments behind the amendments.
I hope that it is not too much to ask the Minister to recognise the force of my right hon. Friend's arguments, which have been consistently maintained since Second Reading. I hope that the Minister will give us a pleasant surprise by accepting the amendments.

Mr. Ingram: We have a cluster of amendments before us, and it will be difficult to deal with all aspects of them. However, I shall try to work through them in a logical and structured fashion.
Before I come to the amendments, it is important to consider the debate that we have had on Government new clause 3. I gave an indication in Committee of how the

Government were thinking, so the new clause should not have come as a surprise. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) suggested that it was a new concept, but I gave notice in Committee that we were thinking along those lines. We have reflected that thinking, and given the points that we made in Committee, reference should have been made to the Patten report.
I also tell the hon. Gentleman that we are not limiting the time for this debate; I am quite prepared to continue it. That may mean that we cannot debate other issues, but I am happy to debate this issue to a conclusion, because I recognise that it is important.

Mr. Maginnis: I remind the Minister that my surprise was not of my own making. It derived from the fact that when the Secretary of State referred to Belfast in the debate on the Patten report, he said:
I also intend to consider further the arrangements proposed for Belfast, where I am not satisfied that it would be right to have four separate partnerships.—[Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 847.]
What the Secretary of State has given us is an apology for four separate partnerships—and he knows it.

Mr. Ingram: I do not accept that assertion at all. I said that the matter was alluded to in Committee. Members of the Democratic Unionist party and the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) have made a great song and dance about the need to debate this measure, but they are not here. For whatever reason, they have absented themselves from the Chamber. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, all parties—perhaps with the exception of those that are not here now—have made representations, and in the discussions, we have sought to find points of common ground. That fact was reflected in the changes made in Committee. All parties in Committee moved amendments, and we have amended the Bill based on reasoned consideration of the arguments put forward.
I cannot enter into a debate about the future of the district council structure, as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). The councils are no longer a matter for the United Kingdom Government. It is for the Assembly on which he serves to determine what the structure should be. If the structure evolves and develops in a particular way, that is an issue for the Assembly.
As the Bill stands, there is provision for 26 councils. However, we anticipate that two or three small councils may wish to come together. That is allowed for if they wish it and if everyone is satisfied that that is the way forward. Rearrangement of the existing structure can take place if there is agreement.
I do not accept the point made by the right hon. Gentleman that new clause 3 was not explained, but I shall explain it further, to help him to appreciate what we are doing. The Belfast district policing partnership, out of which will come the four sub-groups, will continue to have the powers set out in clause 16. Those are the same as for all other DPPs; there is no difference between Belfast and anywhere else. Those powers will not be delegated to the four sub-groups; there is no delegation of powers on that basis. The sub-groups will remain subordinate to the main Belfast DPP and they will have


the function of providing views and holding discussions with the local police commander. They will also offer to the main Belfast DPP views on policing in their areas.
As I said earlier, the sub-groups will have no role in the main planning process for Belfast except in offering views to the Belfast DPP, of which they are an integral part. The local police planning function is for the Belfast DPP as a whole. There is no question of transferring power down to the sub-groups in that way. They have certain limited functions.

Mr. Thompson: Am I right in thinking that a DPP can delegate its responsibilities to a committee and give it the powers of the partnership? Can that happen in this case? Furthermore, the Minister has referred to six nominees to a partnership, so why does he not insist that three are elected and three are independent members?

Mr. Ingram: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes, that is how the Bill can apply. Of course, there must be sensible arrangements to ensure the best and maximum point of contact and the best communications at local level between the local community and the police and vice versa. That is the underlying principle of the Bill, and it seeks to achieve that. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman would disagree with the principle that the local community should engage with the local police. The problem in too many areas of Northern Ireland is that the local community does not engage with the police—[Interruption.] Well, to find ways to encourage that to happen was obviously one of the underlying motives and drivers of the Patten report and of what we are seeking to deliver.
As for the four sub-divisions of Belfast, there are already four police districts in Belfast. Clause 20 makes provision for police districts and the way in which they will be established. Each district commander should deal with a specific sub-group of the Belfast district policing partnership. That goes back to the point that I was making to the hon. Gentleman about the need for a close relationship with the local district commander, which concerns effective community policing as well as effective accountability for policing. The further that is from the reality on the street, the less effective it is.
As set out in new clause 3, each sub-group will have six members, so individual members of the DPP will be represented on more than one sub-group. The partnership itself will appoint members of the sub-group. As the Government do not intend to intervene in any way whatever, that is in effect a devolution of responsibility. If the Government intervened and were heavy-handed, that would work against the very principle which, I would have thought, we all seek to achieve. I repeat that the provision is about consultation on policing, not sectarian head counts, as has been suggested, or the cantonisation of policing.

Mr. Trimble: May I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), as there is an inconsistency in the Government's approach to the Policing Board for Northern Ireland and to individual district policing partnerships. The Bill contains elaborate provisions to ensure balance, and make sure that the board is representative of the Assembly, the partnerships of the district councils, and so on. The Government are not

reluctant to impose on the Assembly and the local councils provisions that ensure balance. Why, then, is there no provision to ensure balance in the sub-groups? Why does the Minister forswear the desire to have balance there? It is important that that issue is addressed, as it would help to restore confidence if we were sure that the sub-groups were reflective of the partnership as a whole, and that the door was not being opened to the creation of sub-groups that were not representative of the partnership as a whole, which would lead to sectarianisation or cantonisation of the sub-groups.

Mr. Ingram: They will certainly not be cantonised in the terms suggested.
The provision is not about the cantonisation of the sub-groups, any more than it is about the cantonisation of policing. There are two ways of approaching the matter. One could take a heavy-handed, interfering approach—[Interruption.] I am trying to deal with this debate, but the right hon. Member for Upper Bann keeps shouting at me from a sedentary position. I cannot hear what he is saying, but it is a bit off-putting. I am trying to work through his last question, but he is not letting me get 10 words out before he starts disagreeing with my explanation.
We are seeking to establish, in the hands either of the board or of the Secretary of State, powers proportionate to the body to which those powers relate. Those bodies are low-level, and I have tried to set out the fact that they are concerned with local consultation. They do not have the powers of the DPPs. If the Government were to ride in and say that we wanted a certain type of representation, that would be very heavy-handed and would work against the principle of devolution itself. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann may believe that we should interfere, and wish that we would, in every aspect of Northern Ireland society. However, that is not my view, as it runs counter to the principle of devolution and to all the representations concerning the relative powers of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable that we received when the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 was being considered.
The same tripartite structure applies here. Representations were made about the Secretary of State having too much power, and we are trying to ensure that the powers provided for are proportionate to the level of responsibility. I am now being asked to apply a heavy-handed approach, which is inconsistent.

Mr. Trimble: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ingram: I shall, but we have a lot of progress to make.

Mr. Trimble: I am sorry to intervene on the Minister again, but he has not answered the question. All I said was that he was being inconsistent. He stands at the Dispatch Box saying that he does not want to be heavy-handed, but he is being heavy-handed on the composition of the board, as he has been on the composition of the partnerships. Why does the principle of representative character not flow through to the sub-groups?

Mr. Ingram: We must look at the size of the sub-groups. The way in which these bodies are set up


means that the DPP itself must take that sort of view into account. However, if we are over-prescriptive, that militates against the principle that the provision is about people's local communities.
DPPs and the sub-groups will not be successful if they become bodies set up on the basis of sectarian head-counts, as there will be no co-operation across the community divide. I do not believe that there is an inconsistency, as we must seek to ensure that the level of decision making is proportionate to the body being set up. In a sense, we are dealing with a low-level body which has certain points of interface with the police. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann is shaking his head. However, many people in Northern Ireland will not co-operate with the current policing structure. If we say that we have to be prescriptive and insist on a certain structure, the result will be abstentionism. If we decided not to have either the DPP or the sub-groups, what would be lost? We must ensure that the police have that point of contact in their community.
Not for the first time, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone raised the issue of regional commands. I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but in one sense, I have more respect for the Chief Constable, for the way in which his views could impact on my thought process about the proper structures for policing in Northern Ireland. The Chief Constable is highly respected and extremely professional, and has accepted the concept of district commands and the eventual removal of the regional tier. The provision is therefore consistent with what he believes to be effective and efficient policing.

Mr. Maginnis: Does the Minister's justification for accepting the Chief Constable's advice over that of my hon. Friends and myself not conflict with his huge desire to take advice on policing from ex-terrorists who will be members of the district policing partnership? Does the Minister regard my hon. Friends and myself less highly because we do not have that qualification?

8 pm

Mr. Ingram: I am not conscious of having taken advice of that nature. The hon. Gentleman claims that I have taken such advice, but it may surprise those whom he calls ex-terrorists to hear that they have ready access to me and can influence my thought processes. I see no evidence of that. We have taken account of the views expressed by all the political parties that have sought to make representations on the matter.
I could spend longer on new clause 3 if required, but we have probably exhausted our examination of it. I have set out what I believe to be a reasoned response to the issues that have been raised. There will be one Belfast DPP and four sub-groups, which will respond to the main DPP. I hope that that will satisfy hon. Members.

Mr. Trimble: What about the community police liaison committees?

Mr. Ingram: For CPLCs, the DPPs will have a responsibility to seek to set up local arrangements and to look for ways in which they can penetrate the wider community and be truly representative, and we will

encourage that. The DPPs will not be omnipotent bodies, and they should not sit in their ivory towers and claim that they are the only people who understand policing. Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman pointed out the need to ensure that the point of contact is as close as possible to the direct interface. We cannot be prescriptive about that and say that the focus should be on a cluster of, say, four streets.
To return to the right hon. Gentleman's argument, we cannot even say that the CPLCs should be representative. In Northern Ireland, the sub-divisions in a particular area such as a cluster of streets are such that it may be very hard to achieve cross-community representation. That in itself does not damage the point of contact between a particular community and the police; its success will depend on the way in which the community deals with its interface with the police, which will be conditioned by the thought processes of the DPPs as they take account of views that are expressed. Those views may be one-sided, but in their consideration of them the DPPs should ask themselves whether or not there is a balance.
Amendment No. 14, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), would place a time limit on district councils, giving them six months to establish a DPP. Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, also in my hon. Friend's name, would impose further time limits requiring the council to appoint political members within six months, and the board to appoint independents within one month of receipt of nominations. I am not convinced that those would be wise or necessary moves.
The Patten report made it clear that arrangements should be put in place to facilitate constant dialogue at local levels between the police and the community. We support that vision of the future of policing, and part III will enable it to happen. However, we do not think it necessary to establish time limits now, as we cannot be certain how long the arrangements will reasonably take. For example, the board needs to be appointed before it can consider and approve its code for DPPs. It is also to be consulted, among others, about the Secretary of State's code on appointments. There will then be an appointments process, which our experience of public appointments leads us to think may take from three to six months, depending on when it is run.
We are embarking on a new process, and wrinkles will need to be identified before they can be ironed out. Furthermore, the council will need time to make its decisions on nominations. That all points to a commitment that appointments, independent and political, will be made as soon as possible, but also to a recognition that that could take longer than the amendments anticipate, depending on the starting point. There is a safeguard in clause 15 that gives the Secretary of State the power to intervene; for example, if a district council fails to establish a DPP for its district, he can direct it to comply. If those arrangements are to work, all council areas must play their part and each council area must have a means of promoting and facilitating community-police consultation.
Although I would be sympathetic to the desire to introduce a time scale in other contexts, I do not believe, for the reasons that I have set out, that it would be practical in this case. I hope that amendments Nos. 14, 19 and 20 will not be pressed to a vote.
Amendment No. 56, to which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone spoke, would extend the power given to the Secretary of State in clause 15 which enables him to intervene where a district council fails to establish a DPP. The amendment would require him to take action where a council failed to comply with any of the part III arrangements.
In Committee there were many criticisms about the heavy-handed involvement of the Secretary of State in the Bill's provisions. The Government do not accept those criticisms, but we have taken account of the arguments about the relationships between the Secretary of State, the Policing Board and the Chief Constable. We have sought to take a balanced approach, and we have given the Secretary of State powers and provided safeguards where we believe that they are necessary and justified.
We felt that it was imperative to ensure that a default power was provided in case councils failed to establish DPPs. However, on the general functions of DPPs and their obligations to report to councils and the board, with which the amendment deals, we are not convinced that the Secretary of State needs, or should have, further powers to intervene. Again, we seek to create proportionate powers. We believe that those are more appropriately matters for the board and the council to tackle.
That is why we have provided for the board to set the functions and powers in a code, and why its powers dovetail with those of the DPPs. It is also why it can override DPPs under clause 15, and in setting up local consultative arrangements under clause 22. That relates to the argument about CPLCs advanced by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. We are also considering suggestions made in Committee by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone to add more comment on and assessment of DPPs to the matters that the board is to cover in its annual report.
I remind hon. Members that the functions of DPPs are purely consultative. The powers affecting them should therefore be proportionate, and the amendment does not achieve that objective, so I hope that hon. Members will not press it to a vote.
I turn now to amendments Nos. 59 to 61, to which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone also spoke. I know from his comments in Committee that he has deep concerns about the operation of DPPs, and he has expressed those concerns again tonight. Through amendment No. 59 he seeks to require DPPs to comply with the code of practice on the exercise of their powers and functions rather than to have regard to it. Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 would require the board to issue that code of practice and permit it to be revised from time to time.
I shall deal with the latter issue first. The hon. Gentleman showed in Committee that he favours what I would define as prescriptive, rather than discretionary, powers and would therefore like to bind the DPPs, the board and the Secretary of State at every turn.

Mr. Maginnis: indicated assent.

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman nods his agreement that he would like the process to develop in that way.
The important point is that the functions of the boards are clearly set out. The code will be a translation into guidance of those functions. Clause 16 clearly sets out the

functions. We have also stated that the DPPs shall report to the district council and that they shall report to the board.
Notwithstanding that, I have no doubt that the board will issue a code of practice covering the exercise by DPPs of their powers and functions, and indeed we plan to give the board a draft code from which to work. We envisage that the DPPs will, in the early days of their operation, need that code and find it most useful. As they begin to develop their own knowledge and become more experienced, they will require less guidance from the Secretary of State. We genuinely believe that that is the way in which the Bill should be constructed. We are not convinced that a requirement for a code is justified. I ask the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone not to press for a vote on amendments Nos. 59 to 61.
As I have mentioned, the functions are clear in clause 16. The code of practice gives guidance on the exercise of them. We need to understand that adherence to the guidance cannot be too prescriptive. Flexibility will be needed so that each council area is able to adapt the best practice set out in the code in a way which suits its own needs. Tight compliance is not, therefore, sensible. As we stated in Committee, what could be best practice in Moyle district, for example, may not necessarily be best practice in another district. Flexibility is a desirable approach. A too prescriptive approach would tie down the ways in which these bodies could operate.
The code cannot override the statutory functions in clause 16. It cannot take away that which is set out in the Bill. If it had to be complied with, the board could stray beyond the clause and the DPPs would be asked and expected to extend beyond their powers. There is nothing underhand about the way in which we are approaching these issues. It is about saying where respective powers should rest. That is a further argument against amendment No. 59, which I hope will convince the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone not to press it to a Division.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington spoke to amendments Nos. 16 and 17. Amendment No. 16 places a duty upon DPPs to hold all meetings in public. As we discussed in Committee, the amendment goes well beyond the Patten report, which recommended in paragraph 6.37 a meeting in public once a month. We have provided for the Patten recommendation to be implemented by the Policing Board issuing a code to the partnerships, on the exercise of their functions, under clause 19. The clause lists the areas to be covered by the code, including procedures for meetings and public meetings. While partnerships should operate in an open manner, the chairperson should have discretion to hold parts of the meeting in private or to remove the public.
I shall give the House an example. A district commander may be talking about the building of a new police station. That may have implications for land price. He may want to give some advice or knowledge to the DPP. If the meeting were held in public, that might lead to speculation. We do not believe that the standard approach should be meetings in camera, but there may be occasions when that happens. The requirement suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that all meetings should be in public would militate against that. I ask him not to press amendment No. 16 to a Division.
Amendment No. 17 seeks to provide that the code of practice will cover the arrangements for enabling DPP members and the public to ask the police questions about


the discharge of their functions and police operations in the district. In paragraph 6.30 the Patten report recommended meetings between the DPP and the district commander at which the police would present reports and answer questions, and the partnership would reflect community concerns and priorities to the police. The report recommends also that questions by the public should go through the chair.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is seeking to insert in the Bill a considerable amount of detail which we believe is more appropriately dealt with in the code of practice. Clause 19(3) specifically provides for the issues mentioned in the amendment to be dealt with in the code. We believe that the code is a much more sensible approach to what was envisaged and set out in the Patten report. I ask my hon. Friend not to proceed to Divisions on his amendments.
A complicated range of issues are raised by the amendments and I apologise for the time that I have taken. However, important issues are contained within each of the elements that has been raised.
Amendment No. 62, which was moved by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, seeks to ensure that nothing in the code of practice will require a district commander to disclose any information which would compromise effective policing. If I interpret the purpose behind the amendment correctly, the hon. Gentleman is seeking to preserve the operational independence of the police. I can assure him that that is already entirely the case.
8.15 pm
The Patten report specifically states in paragraph 6.21 that it is the Chief Constable's right and duty to take operational decisions and that no one should direct him how to conduct an operation. The paragraph also points out that police officers, while accountable, must
be free to exercise their responsibilities.
The Patten report adopted a sensible and powerful view.
I have explained that DPPs are consultative bodies. The police may operate as they wish but they are accountable to the community, in this instance through the DPPs. The police have said that they want to work in partnership with the DPPs, which will allow for greater consultation between local communities and the police in identifying concerns and priorities at local level. The code of practice on the functions of DPPs will detail what is expected of the police. However, it is clear that police commanders will not, and should not, be expected to disclose details of on-going operations or criminal investigations. To do so would be entirely wrong. I think that that is what amendment No. 62 is seeking to establish. If so, it is not necessary. We believe that the matter is already covered within the Bill.
Amendment No. 63 was tabled by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), and I do not disagree with its general thrust. Indeed, I gave an assurance in Committee that I would consider an amendment that would require a public satisfaction assessment for DPPs. I regret that I have not yet been able to do so. I am taking a legal view on how we can best achieve such assessment. When that has been clarified and the parliamentary

draftsmen have advised us on how the provision can be put in place in legal terms, we shall return to the matter in another place. In a sense, I am accepting the amendment in principle once the matter has been clarified.
Amendments Nos. 6 to 9, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, relate to part II of schedule 1, which relates to the constitution of the Policing Board during direct rule immediately after the devolved Government have been suspended. None of us wants to see that eventuality happening. Amendment No. 11 relates to part III, dealing with a board established immediately following devolution.
Amendment No. 6 seeks to remove the element of flexibility which has been given to the Secretary of State in terms of the representativeness of appointments to the board. Our intention in including such flexibility was not to permit the Secretary of State to appoint at random with no regard to representativeness. It was to acknowledge that there may be occasions when a representative selection of people does not come forward. I have said that there is a sizeable body of opinion in Northern Ireland which does not co-operate with the existing police authority. If there are abstentions and a boycott, how can we deliver on representativeness? Problems would be created. It is important that we have structures and that those who decide not to co-operate should not have the veto in those circumstances.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, when taken together, would require the Secretary of State to consult on first and subsequent appointments to the board, and seek to limit the time for that to three months. Given the way in which the matter has been addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, there may be some confusion. The first thing to understand is that the provisions that he is tackling will apply only in very specific circumstances, and that is where devolution is suspended. In this circumstance, sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 3 applies to enable a board to be established quickly by the Secretary of State, as otherwise there will be a vacuum, with no board at all. We wish to avoid that.
There will have been consultation on the appointment of the nine independent members of the devolved board, and the likelihood is that others will be shortlisted at that time. The Secretary of State would undoubtedly seek to appoint the nine who are already serving and up to nine others. A direct rule board can have between 14 and 19 members. There could be up to nine others in those circumstances. That would be done as far as practicable to create a representative board.
Who knows who might wish to co-operate and participate as we moved from devolution to direct rule? There would undoubtedly be difficulties, but our assumption would be that the nine independents appointed under devolution would wish to serve on an on-going basis and would therefore automatically be appointed, bringing the strength of the board to between 14 and 19 members. It is important that we could move very quickly in a very unfortunate set of circumstances. It would be wrong to create a vacuum. That is why I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the amendments to a vote.
Amendment No. 11 places a nominal three-month limit on consultation on appointments of independents to a devolved board and, in effect, would tie the consultation process down. The Government will make appointments


to the board as quickly as we can, and we have already established a timetable, with shadow appointments in January. The process will not be helped by absolute time limits that bear no relation to the practicalities of making such appointments. This is not an easy road to tread, as we have experienced when previously encouraging people to serve. To impose strict time limits could prove unhelpful.
Amendment No. 9, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington also spoke, is simply not in keeping with Patten. The amendment would replace appointment of the first chairperson and vice-chairperson of the direct rule board by the Secretary of State, under schedule 1(3)(9), with a provision placing responsibility in the hands of the board and allowing for rotation.
Patten said in paragraph 6.14:
that the chairperson be appointed by the Secretary of State.
That is a very clear direction. Knowing that my hon. Friend supports the general thrust of the Patten commission's report, I suggest that his amendment does not comply with it and that therefore he should not press it to a vote.
Amendments Nos. 10, 12 and 13, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington also spoke, would enable persons who were not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means to retain their seats on the board, whether during direct rule or devolved government. Absurdly, they would also enable a person who has been excluded from holding the office of Minister in the Assembly not to be disqualified from appointment to the board. That would not be a sensible provision. The Government are not prepared to remove what we believe to be important safeguards in the appointments process. Parliament has already seen fit to enact such safeguards under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I do not for a moment believe that it would be the wish of the House to move back from that position. I would not seek support for the amendments.
I turn to amendments Nos. 303 to 307, to which the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) spoke. We dealt with the matter that they concern on Second Reading and in Committee, and I have asked the right hon. Gentleman to clear up some confusion, which is perhaps only in my mind. He is not prepared for particular people, who have been elected, to serve on the Policing Board, yet he is prepared to allow them to continue to serve as Ministers in a devolved Administration.
The right hon. Gentleman thinks that, under the new political settlement, responsible Members of the devolved Assembly should not be allowed to serve on the Policing Board. I take account of his comments on security matters, and so on, but I am sure that the Chief Constable and others will be wholly cognisant of what they should be reporting to the board. They will be reporting not on national security issues but on policing issues relating to the functions of the Policing Board.

Mr. MacKay: I am glad that, at last, it has dawned on the Minister that he might be the only person who is confused. For that I am grateful. Let me again from this Dispatch Box say clearly that we see a distinction between being a Minister in the Executive, responsible for, for instance, education or health, and serving on a police board or in a police partnership. We envisage severe security implications.
We need an answer to the following question: is he not concerned that it would be dangerous and wrong for ex-convicted terrorists to have security-sensitive information? I think that he probably is concerned, because he has just admitted that the Chief Constable would be aware that he could give only certain information to the board and partnerships. That seems a great pity; I thought that we wanted the fullest possible information to be given.

Mr. Ingram: I have not cleared up the confusion in my mind. In the memorable phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) in Committee, the Conservative party seems to hide behind the bush and shake it at the same time. That became a touchstone for those of us who were trying to understand the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman's party.
The Conservatives are prepared to accept the political settlement and to have—the right hon. Gentleman should be direct about this—Sinn Fein Members in the Government of Northern Ireland, who could interface with me as the security Minister on matters relating to, let us say, drugs or juvenile justice. There is a substantial interface. Is he saying that I should not talk to such Members about those policing matters? The more that we can encourage representative parties that hitherto have not done so to talk about policing or to talk to representatives of those who express views on policing or police officers, the more that we demonstrate considerable progress.

Mr. MacKay: Does not the Minister realise that there is a difference between what he refers to as the interface between him and any Minister in the Executive on one hand, and people sitting on the board or police partnerships, who will be more than "interfacing"? They will have considerable responsibilities. A proper relationship between the police and the board, which the Minister and I want, and proper relationships between the police and the partnerships can be created only by trust. There is no way that the police can trust ex-terrorist criminals. The Minister must know that. I know it and it is why our amendments should be accepted.

Mr. Ingram: We are talking about an interface between the police and the Policing Board or, indeed, between the police and DPPs, just as we are talking about an interface between representatives of, perhaps, more than one party about which the right hon. Gentleman has concerns and myself, given my responsibility for policing in prisons and criminal justice matters.
I can limit my discussions and the basis on which I seek to communicate information on our objectives. The wide parameters within which the Policing Board and the DPPs will have responsibility will not include responsibility for national security issues. Such issues are, of course, completely precluded not just under the Northern Ireland Act but under other Acts on the devolved Administrations that this Government have set up. [Interruption.] I cannot deal with the right hon. Gentleman's point if he is speaking to me from a sedentary position. If he wants to make another point, I will give way to him. He does not.
The right hon. Gentleman's fear simply does not hold water because such circumstances will not arise. The amendments fail to acknowledge the already extensive disqualification and removal criteria for board members.


The Government have provided safeguards that we believe are necessary, strictly proportionate and measured given the political settlement with which we are dealing.
Unlike the existing Police Authority for Northern Ireland, members of the board will be required to pass a test of upholding the principles of non-violence and of commitment to democratic and exclusively peaceful means. If they do not, the Secretary of State will be able to remove them. I explained in Committee that there are many other safeguards—we do not need to go into all the details—such as character checks, which are based on the very highest standards of probity and integrity. There is a fundamental difference between the right hon. Gentleman's argument and the Government's view. I am not so sure that we will be able to clear it up; we tried to do so in Committee and on Second Reading.
We, from the Government's point of view, are prepared to look at the new political settlement, to move it forward progressively and to implement mechanisms, but let us remember, they will not be delivered as of this evening but at some future point, when, hopefully, the settlement will be further embedded and there will be an even more peaceful environment in Northern Ireland.
8.30 pm
We must also put the matter in a particular time scale. The right hon. Gentleman's argument is inconsistent with what the Patten commission sought to achieve—inclusivity, without risking respect for non-violence and the principles of democracy. Those safeguards will be applied rigorously. I therefore do not believe that more safeguards are needed.
This evening and on previous occasions, the right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the relationship with decommissioning. We share some objectives, but decommissioning is a separate test. The Government believe that substantial progress has been made. The right hon. Gentleman's party may not be wholly convinced of that, but we are satisfied that progress has been made, and we want to build on it.
Finally, I shall deal with the two amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. Amendment No. 21 requires the council to satisfy itself on a number of fronts before putting nominations to the board. It requires the council to ensure that the district is aware that appointments are to be made, that applications have been invited from the district, that the applications have been carefully considered, and that the final nominations reflect that community.
Those are all objectives that the Government share and are exactly the type of issues that the code on appointments will cover. The code will provide guidance to councils on the advertising of independent posts and on interviewing and selection procedures. I said in Committee, and it is worth repeating, that there will be an independent element at both selection and appointment stages.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I appreciate the way in which he is responding to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and

Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and me. If those are the Government's objectives, as I am sure they are, what is wrong with writing them into the Bill?

Mr. Ingram: Those matters will be covered by the code on appointments. We do not want to clutter the Bill with the minutiae of the management of the system. We leave that for the code, which is flexible and amendable. That is the reason for our approach. I hope that my hon. Friends will accept my assurances that the code will cover the situation adequately and the amendment is not required.
Amendment No. 21 would require the Secretary of State to obtain the agreement of the board before providing that two or more councils may establish a single DPP for their district. I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that the remainder of clause 16, to which the amendment relates, provides that the councils must agree to such an amalgamation. It cannot be imposed. We do not envisage the Secretary of State riding in to bring the councils together. If they want to amalgamate for more convenient management of the area through their interface as a DPP, we have provided for that, and the amendment is not necessary.
As I said at the outset, this is a comprehensive group of amendments. I am aware of the time that I have taken, but there are important issues under consideration. I hope that I have answered all the points raised during the debate. I ask the House to support Government new clause 3, and Government amendments Nos. 213, 215, 216 and 218, and to resist all other amendments.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 338, Noes 7.

Division No. 255]
[8.34 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Buck, Ms Karen


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Burden, Richard


Ainger, Nick
Burnett, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Burstow, Paul


Allan, Richard
Butler, Mrs Christine


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Ashton, Joe



Atherton, Ms Candy
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Atkins, Charlotte
Campbel-Savours, Dale


Ballard, Jackie
Casale, Roger


Barnes, Harry
Caton, Martin


Barron, Kevin
Cawsey, Ian


Battle, John
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Bayley, Hugh
Chidgey, David


Beard, Nigel
Chisholm, Malcolm


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clapham, Michael


Begg, Miss Anne
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)



Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Bennett, Andrew F
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Berry, Roger
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Best, Harold
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Blackman, Liz
Clelland, David


Blizzard, Bob
Clwyd, Ann


Borrow, David
Coaker, Vernon


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Coleman, Iain


Bradshaw, Ben
Colman, Tony


Brand, Dr Peter
Connarty, Michael


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cooper, Yvette


Browne, Desmond
Corbett, Robin






Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cotter, Brian
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Crausby, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hume, John


Cummings, John
Hurst, Alan


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Hutton, John



Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jenkins, Brian


Darvill, Keith
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)



Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)



Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dawson, Hilton



Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Denham, John
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dobbin, Jim
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Donohoe, Brian H
Keeble, Ms Sally


Doran, Frank
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dowd, Jim
Kemp, Fraser


Drew, David
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth



Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Khabra, Piara S


Edwards, Huw
Kidney, David


Efford, Clive
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ellman, Mrs Louise
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Etherington, Bill
Kirkwood, Archy


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fearn, Ronnie
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fisher, Mark
Lammy, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Laxton, Bob


Follett, Barbara
Lepper, David


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Fyfe, Maria
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Galloway, George
Linton, Martin


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Livsey, Richard


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gerrard, Neil
Llwyd, Elfyn


Gidley, Sandra
Lock, David


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Love, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A
McAvoy, Thomas


Godsiff, Roger
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Goggins, Paul
Macdonald, Calum


Golding, Mrs Llin
McDonnell, John


Gorrie, Donald
McFall, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McGrady, Eddie


Grocott, Bruce
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gunnell, John
McIsaac, Shona


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McNamara, Kevin


Hancock, Mike
McNulty, Tony


Hanson, David
MacShane, Denis


Harvey, Nick
McWalter, Tony


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McWilliam, John


Healey, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mallaber, Judy


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mallon, Seamus


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hepburn, Stephen
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Heppell, John
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hesford, Stephen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hill, Keith
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hood, Jimmy
Martlew, Eric


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Meale, Alan


Hope, Phil
Merron, Gillian


Hopkins, Kelvin
Michael, Rt Hon Alun





Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)



Miller, Andrew
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moore, Michael
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Snape, Peter


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Squire, Ms Rachel



Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mountford, Kali
Steinberg, Gerry


Mudie, George
Stevenson, George


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Norris, Dan
Stringer, Graham


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Olner, Bill
Stunell, Andrew


O'Neill, Martin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Öpik, Lembit
Swinney, John


Organ, Mrs Diana
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Osborne, Ms Sandra



Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pearson, Ian
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Perham, Ms Linda
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pickthall, Colin
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pike, Peter L
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Plaskitt, James
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Pond, Chris
Timms, Stephen


Pope, Greg
Todd, Mark


Pound, Stephen
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Powell, Sir Raymond
Trickett, Jon


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Truswell, Paul


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Purchase, Ken
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Quinn, Lawrie
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rammell, Bill
Tyler, Paul


Rapson, Syd
Tynan, Bill


Raynsford, Nick
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rendel, David
Walley, Ms Joan


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Ward, Ms Claire


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Wareing, Robert N


Rooney, Terry
Watts, David


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Webb, Steve


Rowlands, Ted
Welsh, Andrew


Roy, Frank
White, Brian


Ruane, Chris
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)



Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Salter, Martin
Winnick, David


Sanders, Adrian
Wood, Mike


Sarwar, Mohammad
Woolas, Phil


Sawford, Phil
Worthington, Tony


Shaw, Jonathan
Wray, James


Sheerman, Barry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Mr. Don Touhig and



Mr. Graham Allen.


NOES


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Thompson, William


Maginnis, Ken
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Paisley, Rev Ian



Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Mr. Roy Beggs and



Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

THE COMMISSIONER

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may appoint a Commissioner to discharge the general function mentioned in subsection (3).

(2) A person for the time being holding the office of Commissioner under subsection (1) is referred to in this Act as "the Commissioner".

(3) The Commissioner's general function is to oversee the implementation of changes in the policing of Northern Ireland described in his terms of reference.

(4) Schedule (The Commissioner), which makes further provision about the Commissioner, shall have effect.

(5) The office of Commissioner shall cease to exist on 31st May 2003, unless before that date an order is made under subsection (6).

(6) The Secretary of State may by order provide that the office of Commissioner (whether or not it then exists as a result of a previous order under this subsection) shall continue to exist for a period not exceeding three years from the date on which the order comes into operation.'.—[Mr. George Howarth.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, in subsection (3), leave out from second "the" to end and insert—
'process of police reform in Northern Ireland'.
Government new clause 5—Reports by the Commissioner.
Amendment No. 23, in clause 27, page 12, line 29, at end insert—
'(1A) Before making an order the Secretary of State must consult the Oversight Commissioner.'.
Government new schedule 1—'The Commissioner—

Appointment etc. of the Commissioner

1.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a person shall hold and vacate office as the Commissioner in accordance with the terms of his appointment.

(2) An appointment as Commissioner may be full-time or part-time.

(3) The first appointment as Commissioner shall come to an end on 31 May 2003.

(4) Any other appointment as Commissioner shall be for a period not exceeding 3 years.

(5) A person may at any time resign his office as Commissioner by notice in writing to the Secretary of State.

(6) The Secretary of State may call upon the Commissioner to retire if satisfied that the Commissioner has—

(a) been convicted of a criminal offence; or
(b) become bankrupt or made a composition or arrangement with his creditors.

(7) Before calling upon the Commissioner to retire, the Secretary of State shall give the Commissioner an opportunity to make, either personally or otherwise, representations to him and shall consider any representations that he makes.

(8) A Commissioner who is called upon to retire under sub-paragraph (6) shall retire on such date as the Secretary of State may specify or on such earlier date as may be agreed between him and the Secretary of State.

Terms of reference

2.—(1) On appointing the Commissioner, the Secretary of State shall give him written terms of reference.

(2) The terms of reference shall, in particular, describe the changes in policing in Northern Ireland the implementation of which it is the general function of the Commissioner to oversee.

Remuneration, pensions, allowances, etc.

3.—(1) The Secretary of State may pay, or make such payments towards the provision of, such remuneration, pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of a person appointed to the office of Commissioner as he may determine.

(2) Where a person ceases to hold office as Commissioner otherwise than on the expiry of his term of office, and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right for that person to receive compensation, the Secretary of State may make to that person a payment of such amount as the Secretary of State may determine.

Staff

4.—(1) The Commissioner may, with the approval of the Secretary of State as to numbers and as to remuneration and other terms and conditions of service, employ such persons as he thinks fit to enable him to carry out his functions.

(2) The Commissioner may make arrangements for administrative, secretarial or other assistance to be provided for him by persons employed in the civil service.

(3) Employment by the Commissioner shall be included among the kinds of employment to which a scheme under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 can apply and accordingly in Schedule 1 to that Act, at the appropriate place in the list of "Other Bodies" there shall be inserted—
Employment by the Police Reform Commissioner for Northern Ireland.".

5. The Employers' Liability (Defective Equipment and Compulsory Insurance) (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 does not require insurance to be effected by the Commissioner.

Exercise of functions

6.—(1) Any functions of the Commissioner under this Act may be performed by any officer of the Commissioner authorised for the purpose by the Commissioner.

(2) "Officer of the Commissioner" means—

(a) a person employed by the Commissioner under paragraph 4(1);
(b) a person providing assistance to the Commissioner in pursuance of arrangements made under paragraph 4(2)

Evidence

7. A document purporting to be duly signed by, or on behalf of, the Commissioner shall be received in evidence and, unless the contrary is proved, be taken to be so signed.

Finance

8. The Secretary of State shall pay to the Commissioner such sums as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate for defraying the expenses of the Commissioner under this Act.

9.—(1) The Commissioner shall—

(a) keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts;
(b) prepare in respect of each financial year a statement of accounts in such form as the Secretary of State may direct; and
(c) send copies of the statement to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General before the end of the month of August next following the financial year to which the statement relates.

(2) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on each statement received by him under this paragraph and shall lay copies of each statement and of his report before each House of Parliament.'.

Amendment (a) thereto: leave out paragraph 2.

Government amendments Nos. 264 to 266.

Mr. Howarth: New clauses 4 and 5 and new schedule 1, which were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, honour the commitment, which the Government gave to the Committee during its 11th sitting on 7 July, to put the office of oversight commissioner on a statutory footing. We have done so in a manner that is consistent with, and faithful to, the Patten report.
Patten recommended at chapter 19 of the report that there should be a commissioner to oversee change and to provide assurance to the community about progress. It is worth reminding the House exactly what Patten said. I know that, as ever, my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is mindful of the Patten recommendations and how the Bill conforms to them. Paragraphs 19.4 states:
an eminent person, from a country other than the United Kingdom or Ireland, should be appointed as soon as possible as an oversight commissioner with responsibility for supervising the implementation of our recommendations.
Paragraph 19.5 states that the Government, police service, Policing Board and direct policing partnerships should provide the oversight commissioner with objectives and timetables covering their responsibilities and should report on their progress in achieving them. It also states that the commissioner should report publicly after each review, giving his observations on the extent to which objectives have been met. Paragraph 19.6 states that the commissioner should be appointed for five years.
Government new clause 4, together with Government new schedule 1, will place the post on a proper statutory footing. As we said in Committee, we have introduced those provisions in part to show our commitment to the office and because they will add to the commissioner's status. The commissioner will oversee the implementation of changes to the policing of Northern Ireland as described in his terms of reference.
The terms of reference for the commissioner, who was obviously appointed before any statutory provision was introduced, have been published and are available in the Library. Subject to a renewable appointment for three years, rather than Patten's recommendation of five years, they show that we have been entirely faithful to Patten. Patten suggested that the commissioner should review progress three or four times a year. Government new clause 5 provides for the commissioner to make periodic reports at least three times a year.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: If the commissioner thinks that certain elements of the legislation do not work or impede progress towards the Government's laudable objectives, will he have the right to make that known in one of his periodic reports? For example, if he thought that the colour of the uniform should be changed to blue to make it more compatible with those of neighbouring police forces, could he make such a recommendation?

Mr. Howarth: We are anxious to remain as faithful as possible to Patten, who, as my hon. Friend knows, was clear on the colour of the uniform. Such matters would probably be outwith the commissioner's terms of reference. I do not want to be drawn on my hon. Friend's specific example because, although he might disagree with Patten, we are anxious to implement the broad thrust of his recommendations. In fact, we shall do so as closely as possible. I intend to deal with the general point that my hon. Friend makes later in my opening remarks.
The Government have made provision for the commissioner to report at least three times a year. As hon. Members will see from the terms of reference, the Government, the Chief Constable, the Policing Board and DPPs will provide objectives, with timetables, and report on progress, so he will regularly updated. The commissioner will then report publicly and would be expected to outline progress achieved, identify any obstacle to progress and seek explanations about delays. Again, we have fully met Patten's recommendations in that regard. I would ask the House to accept Government new clauses 4 and 5 and Government new schedule 1.
I want make something clear for the benefit of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for South Down and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who are anxious to receive an answer to a question that informs the amendments that they have tabled. They want to know whether the oversight commissioner can go public if he has any serious concerns about how implementation is proceeding and whether he will be at liberty to say whatever he thinks appropriate about any lack of progress. The answer is yes, and any such reports that he may think appropriate will be published. I believe that my hon. Friends' concerns will be addressed because those powers exist.
Government amendments Nos. 264 to 266 are standard provisions, by which the oversight commissioner will be added to the list of bodies under the House of Commons and Assembly Disqualification Acts. They are straightforward and should not cause the House any difficulty and I therefore ask hon. Members to accept them.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I should like to place on record a sincere welcome for the Minister's announcement that the new clause will introduce into statute the office, terms of reference and conditions of the oversight commissioner. That was not the case in Committee, and it represents an important advance in implementing the Patten recommendations.
However, having looked a gift horse in the mouth, as it were, we have tabled amendment (a) to new clause 4 and amendment (a) to new schedule 1. They are designed to ensure that the oversight commissioner enjoys the full role that the Patten commission envisaged for that office. We feel that the implementation of all the Patten recommendations is one of the most important innovations to arise from the independent commission's report on policing in Northern Ireland. The oversight commissioner is the safety net—the catch-all.
Patten said that that office should not simply involve taking stock and that the
review process would provide an important impetus to the process of transformation


and a new beginning. I welcome the Government amendments as it is vital that the oversight commissioner engages and ensures that all Patten is implemented. However, our problem, which is covered by our amendments, is that the commissioner's terms of reference are limited to overseeing only those changes in policing that the Government decide. That is a restriction. Although we do not want to give the commissioner carte blanche in everything, he should not be unable to comment on the adequacy of the Government's decisions and recommendations.
9 pm
Patten himself referred to those
decisions that will be made by Government
but the oversight commissioner should not be the only person who cannot comment on Government policy or point out its obvious deficiencies. We have come some way from where we were in Committee, but I would like the Minister to underscore what I think that he said earlier. Can he state unambiguously that the oversight commissioner will be able to comment on Government decisions on police reform when he believes that to be appropriate? If the Minister can give such an undertaking on taking action in reasonable circumstances, I shall happily withdraw our amendments.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I, too, am concerned about the implications of what the Government have done. Patten said that
an eminent person, from a country other than the United Kingdom or Ireland, should be appointed as soon as possible as an oversight commissioner with responsibility for supervising the implementation of our recommendations.
However, the new clause says:
The Commissioner's general function is to oversee the implementation of changes in the policing of Northern Ireland described in his terms of reference.
The terms of reference say that the oversight commissioner will be responsible for overseeing the
implementation of the changes in policing arrangements and structures decided in the context of the Patten report
not those recommended in the Patten report. That important distinction will limit his role to considering only what the Government do rather than what happens in the context of the Patten report.
Therefore, it appears that the oversight commissioner will be a messenger for the Government and the Chief Constable, not a guarantor of Patten, which is how we see his role. The Minister must clear up the apparent discrepancy between Patten and both the new clause and the terms of reference. Under Patten, the oversight commissioner was to consider not only legislation, but all other issues in Patten—for example, the drafting of the code of ethics, the establishment of an independent recruitment agency and so on. Will he have a role in the independent study of an alternative to plastic baton rounds in public order situations?
I welcome the fact that plastic baton rounds have not been used in the recent disturbances. I hope that that practice will be maintained. My right hon. Friend the Minister, in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for

South Down (Mr. McGrady) and to other members of the steering group researching the use of plastic bullets, said that the object was
To establish whether a less than lethal alternative to baton rounds is available; and to prepare a strategy for the tactical deployment of public order equipment by the police in Northern Ireland.
That is not what Patten said. He said:
An immediate and substantial investment should be made in a research programme to find an acceptable, effective and less potentially lethal alternative to the Plastic Baton Round.
Patten said that we should get rid of the plastic baton round and find something else, whereas the steering group asked whether there was something else. There is an important distinction between those two, and I should like to know whether the oversight commissioner will be able to look into matters that are not part of the structures of the police or decided on in the context of the Patten report. Will those matters be covered under these new terms of reference? This is an important issue because, judging by what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, the new clause seems to be a considerable departure from Patten. I hope that, when he replies, he will put my fears, especially about plastic bullets, to rest.
I raised the issue of an oversight commissioner on Second Reading and asked for such a position to be put in the statute. I received an undertaking that that would be done in Committee, and I express my thanks to my right hon. and hon. Friends for putting the proposal into the legislation. I hope that this very good measure will be made perfect by ending my worries on those two small points.

Mr. Maginnis: The amendments are probably unnecessary. The oversight commissioner has been appointed, and the new clause seems like supererogation. Can I persuade the Minister not to listen to the siren voices that say that what goes on in the House does not matter, and that on Northern Ireland issues we must abide by Patten in letter and in spirit to the nth degree? If that were the case, there would be no point coming to the House, because what was happening here would be a charade.
The reality is that the House is responsible for legislation, and the extent to which it takes the advice of Patten and his commission is a matter for the House. I suggest to the Minister that he should not contemplate extending the powers or authority of the oversight commissioner beyond what is contained in legislation—beyond what is lawful.

Mr. McDonnell: I shall try to be a siren voice.
Amendment No. 23 is so meek and mild that I cannot see how it could pose a threat to anyone. It relates to clause 27, under which
The Board shall make arrangements as the Secretary of State may by order specify to secure continuous improvement in…efficiency and effectiveness.
I have suggested—very meekly—that
Before making an order the Secretary of State must consult the Oversight Commissioner.
The amendment takes us back to Patten, and to the role of supervision rather than the mild form of oversight proposed by new clause 4. It would also enable us to build on the expertise that the commissioner could use in preparing for improvements in the police service overall.
Amendment No. 23 is in the spirit of Patten, and I hope that, if it is not accepted tonight, the Government will give it further consideration.

Mr. George Howarth: Let me say for the benefit of my friend the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) that we are still considering the inclusion of a standard provision relating to the removal of the commissioner, like the provision applying to the Police Authority and, for that matter, the provision in the Bill applying to the district policing partnership board. As things stand, our plan is to table an amendment in another place.
The amendments to new clause 4 and new schedule 1 would give the oversight commissioner responsibility for the process of police reform in Northern Ireland. They would remove the Secretary of State's ability to set terms of reference for the commissioner. Putting aside for a moment any objection in principle, I am bound to point out that the commissioner is in post, and is operating under terms of reference already set by the Secretary of State. It might therefore be difficult to change retrospectively the basis on which he was appointed and, indeed, to change the terms of reference that went alongside that.

Mr. Trimble: I merely ask for information. The Minister said that the commissioner had been appointed according to a particular set of terms of reference. I hope that he will forgive me for asking whether those terms of reference are in the public domain. Do we know what they are?

Mr. Howarth: Yes, they are in the public domain. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) quoted from them a few moments ago.

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend said that because the terms of reference had already been published, they were somehow set in stone. Can they not be altered?

Mr. Howarth: Any terms of reference can be altered, but we are in a particular situation at this particular time. There is a potential for developments in the future; I shall say more about that shortly. As always, however, we do not wish to create too many blind alleys. Indeed, we are anxious to do the opposite.
Let me now deal with the point of principle. I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment, which seems to constitute an attempt to get the commissioner to implement changes that the Government have not approved. As the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) made clear in a brief speech, the Bill that emerges from the House of Commons will be the law. It will have been considered in another place and gone through a Committee. In that context, although we aim to stay as true to Patten as is practical and possible, it would be inappropriate to move away from the principle that what comes out of the House will be important in terms of what the oversight commissioner decides should be overseen in implementing the recommendations.
9.15 pm
I make it absolutely clear that the commissioner's role is to oversee the implementation of changes in policing

arrangements and the structures decided on by the House and by the Government in the context of the Patten report. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North is right to say that the Government's position is not to accept every detail of the 175 recommendations in Patten. Patten himself acknowledged that that was not necessary. He said that much work had to be done on detail. I think that, as a distinguished former Member of the House, he would be the first. to recognise that it would not be possible within terms of reference to produce a report that was a draft Bill, couched in the language and style of something that could be readily transformed into a Bill. To be fair, some sections of it were such that we could do that, but other sections were not so clearly translatable into legislation.

Mr. Trimble: I am sorry to come back to what is probably a technical point, for which there is a technical answer. The Minister refers to the oversight commissioner having been appointed, given terms of reference and all the rest of it. An appointment may have been made at a point when there was no legislative basis for doing so. We are now creating a legislative basis for the making of an appointment. I do not see in the new clauses or schedule any transitional provision to provide for the fact that the informal appointment that has already been made is to be the appointment for the purposes of the Act. Without such a transitional provision, there will be an obligation on the Secretary of State to make a formal appointment and to provide terms of reference in accordance with the Act.

Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman, eagle-eyed as ever, raises a useful point. I am sure that the answer that he gave to his own question is the answer that he is seeking. Therefore, I am happy to endorse what he said.

Mr. Trimble: In that case, there will be a fresh appointment and fresh terms of reference.

Mr. Howarth: "Fresh" implies a change of personnel and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I do not think that that is the intention.
The other point that we have made—it is a serious answer to the right hon. Gentleman—is that the powers involved will now be put on a statutory footing. That makes a difference. It certainly adds to the standing of the commissioner because he will be carrying out functions that are statutory.
The detail of the changes is contained in the Bill and in the comprehensive implementation plan, which will be updated once the Bill receives Royal Assent—so that which is overseen will be changed in accordance with the way in which the Bill finally emerges. What we are doing is entirely consistent with Patten. I hope—perhaps the phrase is more in hope than anticipation—that, on the basis of the assurances I have been able to give, my hon. Friend the Member for South Down and his colleagues will not feel it necessary to push the amendments to a vote.

Mr. McGrady: The purpose of our amendments is to clarify whether, if the Government do not materially implement a specific Patten recommendation, it would be within the oversight commissioner's power to say, "You have omitted to deal with this substantive matter and to


make this substantive change." If the oversight commissioner will have that ability, either within or without his terms of reference, I would be quite happy, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, not to press the amendments.

Mr. Howarth: I am afraid that my hon. Friend and I will probably have to differ on this point. As we have already made clear, the commissioner is overseeing implementation of the changes arising from Patten and agreed by the Government and the House. The Government have included those changes in the Bill, and the House has approved the principle of the Bill's contents.
I should like now to deal with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North on plastic baton charges. I should say first that the working party which Patten recommended to examine the matter has met recently, and that the research that my hon. Friend mentioned and that Patten recommended is already under way. Although my hon. Friend used that matter as an example, we have taken on board the issue that he has raised. The issue is being addressed along the lines that Patten suggested.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North will know that in chapter 9 of the report, in a box on page 52, Patten dealt with some of the weapons used against the police. He specifically mentioned the use—which, sadly, we have seen in the past few days—of
stones, bricks…bottles…knives, spears and hatchets…firearms of all kinds, including automatic assault rifles and hand grenades.
Patten went on to outline some of the most lethal weapons being used, including:
Blast or pipe bombs…Coffee jar bombs…Petrol bombs…Chinese mortars…Explosive darts…Catapults used to fire steel ball bearings.
Patten interviewed police personnel in the United States and in Holland—which is known for having one of the most liberal policing and criminal justice systems—and concluded that the police cannot be left improperly protected until the research to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North referred has been concluded and a satisfactory alternative to plastic baton charges has been found.
As I said a week or so ago in Committee, the implicit deal between society and the police is that the police act for us in many situations in which we are not capable or legally empowered to act for ourselves. Consequently—as we see far too often in Northern Ireland—the police are often placed in dangerous situations. I therefore think that Patten reached the right conclusion on the matter.
Additionally, we should appreciate the fact that, in different parts of the world, in comparable public order situations, police use not plastic baton charges, but live ammunition. Therefore, in that sense, the restraint that has been shown by the RUC—and that, in the short term, until research provides a viable alternative we expect to continue to be shown by the new police service—is the best option available.

Mr. McNamara: I do not find that recommendation in the summary. Recommendation 69 is that we should find
an acceptable, effective and less potentially lethal alternative to the Plastic Baton Round (PBR).
Patten is therefore saying that we have to find an effective alternative. The terms of reference start by asking whether there is an alternative. That distinction is important because it begins by begging the question that Patten has raised. Patten also stated, in recommendation 70, that
The police should be equipped with a broader range of public order equipment.
The report continues:
The use of PBRs should be subject to the same procedures for deployment, use and reporting as apply in the rest of the United Kingdom.
It also recommends that their use should be treated in the same way as the use of firearms and that training should be confined to a small group. Have those recommendations been carried out?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend quotes at length from Patten, but I can tell him that we are trying to move forward as quickly as possible on all those areas. I do not seek to have an argument with my hon. Friend—

Mr. McNamara: No, I am seeking information.

Mr. Howarth: I am seeking to explain to my hon. Friend that, until such a time as a viable and effective alternative arises from research, that is what will happen. Of course, firearms training of any kind and training in all the equipment is a standard part of the way in which any police force, including the police force in Northern Ireland, operates. I know that the Chief Constable is mindful of those concerns and I also know that police officers in Northern Ireland have had much training in such areas in previous months.

Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend the Minister may recall that I was present in Committee when we had an almost identical debate, and I have much sympathy for what he says about baton rounds. Police officers must have comprehensive protection. On the issue of research, which institute is carrying it out? Given the comprehensive nature of the research, I presume that the programme of research is extensive.

Mr. Howarth: Yes, it is extensive. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I am anxious to make some progress—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) should not keep interrupting the proceedings.

Mr. Howarth: As for the detail that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) seeks, I will get in touch with him on that point.
Amendment No. 23 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). Before addressing the amendment, and in response to arguments in Committee, I want to record that the Government have accepted that there will be a shift in emphasis in the best value area of the Bill. That will be


addressed in the other place and will give the board the lead role in best value, with the Secretary of State simply having a default power.
The provisions in clause 27 are about securing continuous improvement in the way in which the board exercises its functions. It is not Patten. It is an issue to be addressed by the Secretary of State, the board and the Chief Constable. The commissioner's role is clear under his terms of reference and we do not believe it necessary or appropriate to include the functions provided for in that clause. I commend Government new clause 4 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

REPORTS BY THE COMMISSIONER

'.—(1) The Commissioner shall make periodic reports to the Secretary of State on the implementation of the changes described in his terms of reference.

(2) There shall be at least three periodic reports in each year.

(3) The Commissioner may at any time make a report to the Secretary of State on matters arising in the course of his performance of his general function.

(4) The Secretary of State—

(a) shall lay each report made to him under this section before each House of Parliament; and
(b) arrange for the report to be published in such manner as appears to him to be appropriate.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

TARGETS FOR RECRUITMENT

'.—(1) The Board shall establish targets for applications and recruitment to the police of Roman Catholics, women and ethnic minorities and other persons from underrepresented sections of society.

(2) The Board shall monitor applications and recruitment to the police to ensure equality of access.'.—[Mr. Öpik.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Öpik: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Affirmative action—
'.—The Chief Constable or any person appointed under the terms of section 42(1) shall pursue an active programme of affirmative action to increase applications from, and recruitment of, persons from underrepresented sections of society to the police.'.
Government amendments Nos. 127 and 130.
Amendment No. 301, in clause 43, page 21, leave out lines 1 to 14.
Amendment No. 52, in page 21, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
Government amendment No. 133.
Amendment No. 323, in page 21, line 11, leave out "10" and insert "2".
Amendment No. 53, in page 21, line 18, leave out clause 44.
Amendment No. 324, in clause 44, page 21, line 39, after "(4)", insert—
'Save where subsection (4D) applies,'.
Government amendment No. 135.
Amendment No. 325, in page 21, line 45, at end insert—
'(4C) Where subsection (4D) applies, the Chief Constable shall make appointments in accordance with subsection (4) as far as it is practicable to do so.
(4D) This subsection applies where the number of vacant posts in the police support staff which are at the same level and to be filled at or about the same time is not less than two and not more than five.
(4E) The Chief Constable shall each year publish information concerning appointments made by the Chief Constable where subsection (4D) applies.
(4F) Information published under subsection (4E) shall be in such form as the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland may require.'.
Amendment No. 54, in page 22, line 37, leave out clause 45.

Mr. Öpik: The Government took the benefit of our advice on a number of previous amendments, so we are rewarding them with more such advice.
The recruitment process proposed in the Bill involves quotas. I feel duty bound to raise this issue again because the Bill as it stands will not resolve the problem of differential recruitment of Catholics as opposed to non-Catholics. Moreover, it might introduce an additional injustice which is entirely out of keeping with what we are trying to do in the Bill.
First, I stress that the Liberal Democrats adamantly support the intent of ensuring that ethnically fair proportions are recruited to the police service—proportions that genuinely reflect those to be found in the Northern Ireland community. Incidently, that means that we also want a higher proportion of women in the police force, as well as of ethnic minorities such as the Chinese.
The solution of mandatory quotas that is laid down in the Bill would not, however, achieve what the Government want, for several reasons. First, quotas at the stage envisaged in the Bill tackle the symptoms rather than the cause of the problem. Traditionally, there has not been discrimination in the police at the point of selection. In fact, the internal recruitment process seems to have been fair to Catholics who have applied for a job. There has been so little Catholic representation in the police force because Catholics have not had the confidence in the police to apply, or they have been put off by local pressures and, occasionally, even by paramilitary pressure.
That being the case, we need to solve the problem of an under-representative police force in the application phase. Tackling the percentage recruited does nothing to tackle the percentage applying. In fact, it could lead to a serious distortion of the recruitment process.
What happens, for example, if 100 vacancies have to be filled and 200 non-Catholics and 50 Catholics apply? The rules state that recruitment should be 50:50. In this example, that would mean that one in four of the non-Catholics would be recruited, but every Catholic applicant would have to be offered a job. Basic recruiting


practice will confirm to anyone that, in such a large group, it is unlikely that 100 per cent. of the people who apply for the job will fill the criteria. That has nothing to do with Catholics; it is to do with real-life, large-scale recruiting.
If one does not get 100 per cent. success from 50 applicants, there will be a shortfall, leaving open various options. Option A would be to drop the standard: give all 50 the job, whether or not they meet the normal qualifications that one expects from applicants. The Minister has made it clear that the Government will not pursue that path. They will not drop the standard that they expect from anyone, be they Catholics, Protestants or whatever. Option A is therefore not a runner.
Option B is to screen out from the 50 Catholic applicants those who make the grade, and give them the job. In my example, there would, by necessity, be a shortfall and one would not be able to fill the quota. What can one do? The Bill provides for dropping the quota. The system is inconsistent. It means that one is fitting the quota around what one can get. Surely the quota is not simply there to reflect reality; it is there to try to influence reality and to re-balance the police force. Obviously, therefore, one must increase the number of applicants to make up the shortfall. What is the point of having quotas for recruitment if, at the end of the day, the Government or the police force have to tackle applicant numbers?
If my logic is correct, the only way to maintain the standard is to ensure that Catholics have the confidence to apply in the first place. That is the crux of the new clauses and amendments that we have tabled. Recruitment quotas will not make people apply to the police force if they do not see police work as a legitimate and worthwhile career. The details must be right so that the reforms create a police service to which Catholics and others who do not have a tradition of joining the police have the confidence to apply.
If the measure is successful, leading figures and members of under-represented communities will endorse the police as a good career. That will encourage younger members of such communities to apply. It will be possible for the cross-community membership of the Policing Board to scrutinise the proposed targets and modify them if they are not working. More important, the barriers that stop people applying to the police can be tackled directly.
The demographics of Northern Ireland will help us to deal with applications. Among 18 to 30-year-olds—the most likely source of new recruits—there is already a balance; 45 per cent. are Catholic and 44 per cent. are Protestant. Others account for 11 per cent. If reform works, the natural rate of recruitment would act as a balance, so quotas would not be needed at that point. If I have lost a few percentage points in my calculations, I put it down to rounding errors.
It is more sensible to use targets than rigid quotas. They would allow the employer—the police service—to have flexibility so that we do not get hung up about injustice by trying to fill targets. Under the Bill, the quota is inflexible; it demands the recruitment from the community of 50 per cent. Catholics and 50 per cent. non-Catholics. That does not even represent the current cross-section of the Northern Ireland community; as I have pointed out, a certain proportion of people do not class themselves as belonging to either religion. The Bill

acknowledges that weakness, because it allows the Secretary of State to vary the percentage; the patch-up job has begun before we have even implemented the measure.
Quotas could inadvertently cause more division in the police service. We do not want officers to be seen as members of one or other sectarian grouping rather than as individuals. Like people in any job, the police have to be judged as individuals. Under the current provisions for the implementation of quotas, there is a danger that that will not occur. We certainly should not introduce measures that create more division in the service.
The operation of the distinction between Catholics and non-Catholics may not help to achieve a balance with other members of the community who have always been under-represented. In Committee, when I pressed the Minister on the fact that everyone would be shoe-horned into those two categories, he replied:
I use the phrase "both traditions". I hope that he appreciates that that shorthand description is most accurate. It represents the vast bulk of prevailing attitudes. People settle into one tradition or the other, although they may not be vehement about their views.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 4 July 2000; c.391.]
That is a dangerous path to take; it would cause other under-represented groups to be ignored. However, that would be the result of the measure.
The legality of quotas is questionable. The Bill proposes amending fair employment legislation to make room for quotas. That would set a dangerous precedent. It underlines the fact that, in any other circumstances, the measure would not be regarded as fair legislation. I suspect that the Government would have something to say if such practice were extensive on the mainland.
That the proposals constitute positive discrimination is not in dispute. On 15 June, in The Irish News, the Secretary of State was quoted as saying that he was implementing Patten's 50:50 recruitment scheme, despite the fact that it would mean changing the law and persuading our European partners that it was a special case for reverse discrimination. Other hon. Members may offer further examples of that point. Apart from not delivering what we want, the quota could be illegal. Furthermore, it is not morally right to remove a present injustice by introducing a future one.
We must create a police service that will attract people from all sections of the community. New clauses 1 and 2 would allow the Policing Board to establish advisory targets for the application and recruitment of Catholics, women and others from under-represented sections of the community. They would impose a duty on the Chief Constable to pursue an active programme of affirmative action to encourage such groups to apply. I emphasise "affirmative action" because that is a world away from positive discrimination. Affirmative action means tackling the underlying reasons why people from certain communities and certain ethnic groups are not applying to the police. That is vastly different from simply setting a quota and expecting it to be filled; in our judgment, although it is harder, it will also tackle the problem at its root.
I wish to cite one last quotation on the matter. It dates from 12 November 1997, when Ronnie Flanagan gave evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. A member of that committee told him:
I think you are absolutely right that positive discrimination is totally counterproductive, based on my experience in other areas. People have to be advanced on merit.


The person who said that was the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), speaking about the Greater London council in the early 1980s. I am sure that, whatever the views of those in this place about that gentleman, he could hardly be regarded as a bastion of old ways or as someone who has opposed positive action to try to rebalance discrimination where he has found it. Taking that into account with the other concerns that I have voiced, my judgment is that—[Interruption.] I suspect that there is a subtext going on here, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I will not be drawn.
Combining all that with the sage advice—at which I see the Minister nodding—from the hon. Member for Brent, East, my judgment is that we are proceeding down the wrong path to achieve what I am sure we all agree is a laudable aim. However, if we do see this through—if we recognise that there is an issue here—the Government can still reconsider. They can still take on board the amendments and new clauses that we have tabled, and recognise that we are trying to do the same thing in a fairer way.
We tackle all the issues as we proceed through these debates, but this issue has real consequences for real people. It could actually cause new grievances instead of addressing the old ones. Positive discrimination also makes everyone either a Catholic or a non-Catholic when, from my own personal history, I can testify that there are individuals who do not categorise themselves in either of those groups.
I am asking the Minister to take these concerns very seriously. I am not alone on this issue, but even if I were, this is a matter of practice and a matter of principle—a principle that the Government should take very seriously, because at the moment they are trying to cure the symptoms rather than the cause, and so often when they do that, they cure nothing at all.

Mr. McGrady: On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I should like to propose for the approval of the House amendments Nos. 323, 324 and 325, which, under the heading of recruitment to the police, deal with the support staff for the new police service.
The present quota for civilian staff applies when 10 vacancies arise at roughly the same level at the same time. I am pleased to note that the Government, in Committee, reduced the number to 10. We believe that it should be two, and in that we are encouraged by the similar attitude of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.
The reason for amendment No. 323, as for many of our amendments, is simply to achieve a full and faithful implementation of the Patten report. Patten said in this respect that the quota system
should apply both to officer and civilian recruitment.
However, at the moment clause 43(5) imposes that artificial limit for the quota for police support staff. It applies only when there are 10 vacancies at any time at the same level.
We believe that it is unlikely that 10 such vacancies will ever arise at the same time and at exactly the same level. The Government are proposing to reduce the number to six. We apply the same argument—that it is unlikely that six such vacancies will frequently arise in the same place, at the same time, at the same level. Amendment No. 323 provides instead that the quota shall apply where two similar vacancies arise at the same

time—in line with the views of the Equality Commission. However, the Government have argued that such a provision would be too inflexible. We have tried to take that on board, and we believe that we have found a way forward that meets the Government's problem, our requirements and those of Patten and the Equality Commission.
9.45 pm
We believe that the Chief Constable should be under a duty as far as practicable to recruit according to the 50:50 principle for between two and five appointments, but if that is not practical in the narrow sense, it should not apply, and the Chief Constable should have the discretion to balance the need to apply the quota against competing needs. However, he would have to account for that course of action, presumably in his annual report. We believe that that is a sensible and practical resolution of the difference between us and the Government, it is a better and fuller implementation of Patten, and it adheres to the views of the Equality Commission. I should like to think that the Government consider the amendment appropriate.

Mr. Trimble: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 301, 53 and 54. Taken together, the amendments would delete from the Bill subsections (3) to (6) of clause 43 and all of clauses 44 and 45. They would in effect remove the provisions to which objection has been taken by my party and by virtually all the parties in the House. The Government should realise that on this issue they stand alone. I am pleased to see that the Liberal Democrats have signed our amendments Nos. 53 and 54. I assume that they have not signed amendment No. 301 owing purely to an oversight.

Mr. Öpik: Administrative error.

Mr. Trimble: We of course have been happy to support the Liberal Democrats' new clauses 1 and 2.
We share with everyone in the House the objective of a police service that is broadly representative of the community. That should not be controversial. It was a stated objective when the RUC was created. About 900 officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary transferred to the RUC, my grandfather among them, and that group was representative of society in Northern Ireland. It was also the policy of the first Unionist Administration in Northern Ireland to achieve a police force that was representative. At one stage, they endeavoured to reserve one third of places for Roman Catholics. Unfortunately, recruitment never matched that target. We do not have the time this evening to go into the reasons why it did not, but the target was there. In that sense, we have no difficulty with the suggestion made by the Liberal Democrats of targets for recruitment and action to persuade people to come forward and join the police service. That is admirable, and I hope that, whatever arrangements are included in the legislation, they will be in those terms.
The Government are however profoundly mistaken in deciding to discriminate in the legislation. Let us not have any nonsense about it. It is not affirmative action, and "positive discrimination" is a mealy-mouthed phrase meaning: "We are going to discriminate and treat one section of the community unfairly." That unfairness is demonstrated in the figures that the hon. Member for


Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) has mentioned. In the target age group—18 to 25—the numbers of Protestants and Catholics are roughly even. The figures that he gave were 44 and 45 per cent. However, 11 per cent. do not state their religion and the legislation will add that 11 per cent. to the Protestant side. So 50 per cent. of recruits will be taken from 45 per cent. of the population and the other 50 per cent. will be taken from 55 per cent. That is clearly discrimination.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on this important point. I have listened carefully to what he has said. He has admitted openly that objectives and targets in the past 80 years have not achieved parity within the RUC. Is there any reason to suppose that setting targets again without the force of law will achieve anything other than the continuation of the obvious imbalance in the RUC membership?

Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman wishes to take me down a road that we do not have time to travel. It is a question of exploring why this has not succeeded and whether there is now a new situation. I hope that there is, and in that new situation there is every reason to expect that there will be a different pattern of recruitment. That will probably happen irrespective of what is enacted here, but what is enacted here is in danger of doing a serious injustice. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear that in mind.
My view is that this arrangement will probably collapse, for a number of reasons, if the Government proceed in the way they propose. For example, in a situation in which the communities are roughly equally balanced, if there is an equal response from both communities of people wishing to join the police service, there will be roughly 50:50 recruitment. If there is not an even response, an unbalanced group of people will move into the pool, and then if we are drawing down on a 50:50 basis from a pool that is not 50:50, a significant number of people who will have been selected as suitable and qualified to join will go into the pool and remain there, month in, month out, for who knows how long.
That will give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance and injustice that no one will be able to defend. Any Administration with any element of conscience will have to address that situation. For that practical reason, I do not think the arrangement will survive.
There is another reason. As the Government know, it involves the consideration of other provisions. The Patten report says that human rights are at the heart of its proposals. Here, they are not. This is a shameful aspect of the Patten report, of the Government's proposals and of the parties that are supporting them. Human rights are at the heart of the proposals? On the one concrete issue where it counts, is anybody paying any attention to human rights? No. The position of hon. Members opposite who are lending the proposal their support is utterly shameful. They should address the matter.
Furthermore, European law will compel a new approach. Article 13 of the Amsterdam treaty, signed in 1997, provides for the introduction of provisions to combat discrimination. The equal treatment directive, coming into operation in December 2002, will have an impact.
In 1998 the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) proposed amendments to legislation going through the House that would have tried to provide a degree of what she might have called positive discrimination for women. From a report by the constitution unit of University College London, entitled "Women's representation in UK Politics: what can be done within the Law?", I wish to quote two paragraphs, because they are quite important. They show why the provisions proposed by other parties are wrong; and they know they are wrong, because they rejected these proposals in 1998. The report says:
On 3 March 1998…a memo was leaked to The Guardian newspaper of a high-level Government meeting where this was discussed.
That is a reference to the hon. Lady's proposals for positive discrimination and other similar proposals.
Allegedly the Secretary of State for Scotland favoured using the Scotland Bill to introduce an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act. However, at this meeting the Lord Chancellor…advised other Cabinet colleagues that it would be unwise to accept such amendments. This was based on advice given to Government law officers by Patrick Elias QC. According to the leak, Lord Irvine reported that if the Sex Discrimination Act were amended, "the probability was that a legal challenge under the European Equal Treatment Directive would succeed…the law officers said that at each stage in the process—adoption of legislation, selection of candidates, and the election itself—the Government could and probably would be a respondent. Any Minister bringing forward or accepting an amendment would not be able to assure the House that it was ECJ-proof—
that is, European Court of Justice-proof.
This would put him in an impossible position and create handling difficulties." Lord Irvine concluded that the Government line should be that "amendment of the SDA would be pointless because of the substantial risk of successful challenge under the ETD.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I am surprised that that particular event in 1998 should be remembered tonight. At that time, I was talking about having equal numbers of men and women elected to the Scottish Parliament. We received strong advice that the equal treatment directive had nothing to do with elected Members of Parliament, but that it had everything to do with people being appointed to jobs, which is what we are debating tonight. Since that time, however, a few studies have been carried out that show that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor was wrong and that we would have been within our rights to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
I certainly agree with one point that the right hon. Gentleman has made—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has made her point that the right hon. Gentleman might be wrong.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which I pretty well invited by referring to her. Her proposal was about equal numbers of men and women and we are debating an analogous proposal relating to an equal number of Catholics and non-Catholics. She conceded that this issue deals with employment and that the provisions for elected Members do not apply in this case.
I would be interested to see the other reports that suggest that the Lord Chancellor got it wrong. The report that I quoted is dated June 2000, so it has been published


within the last month. I am entitled to regard it as up to date and it does not refer to the other reports. The quotes from the Lord Chancellor are clear and authoritative and comply with the independent advice that we have received about the European directive.
The likelihood is that, within a short time, the Government will find that their proposal is struck down by the European courts. The question we must ask the Government is why they are proceeding with a proposal that they know will probably be struck down. They cannot assure the House that it is, in the words of Lord Irvine, "ECJ proof". In any event, the Government must know, without reference to the equal treatment directive, that it is wrong to discriminate in the way that they propose.
By all means, let us do what we can to encourage people to come forward and to ensure that we have a balanced and representative police force. The most significant action that can be taken to achieve that aim requires not legislation, but positive action by some hon. Members sitting on the opposite side of the House. I am thinking of those Members who represent the Social Democratic and Labour party who by their actions—what they say and what they do—in the days and weeks to come can do more to encourage and produce a representative police service than all the legislation put together. Rather than pursue something that is morally wrong and illegal under European law, let them use their voices and get out into the community to persuade people to come forward and join the police service as provided for by this Bill.

Rev. Ian Paisley: When the Democratic Unionist party had a meeting with the Minister of State the legality of the provision for having a police force made up of 50 per cent. Protestants or non-Catholics and 50 per cent. Roman Catholics was one of the issues that we raised. I pointed out, from some little knowledge of Europe, that there was a problem with that provision.
Will the Secretary of State come to the Dispatch Box and tell the House that the provision is legal under European law? Can he say unequivocally that what he is asking for is in complete agreement with European law—or is it not? If he were to refer to a derogation, that would be a different matter. That would mean that he accepted that the provision is not legal under European law and that he must go for a derogation.
10 pm
The debate on this issue cannot proceed until the Secretary of State tells the House exactly what the position in European law is, and it is incumbent on him to know what that legal standing is. I hope that when he, or another Minister, responds to the debate, he will be able to state that clearly. He should not put us off by saying that the Government are looking into it or negotiating it. I will be interested to hear that reply because as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, this is an important matter, and the House needs to know how European law affects what it is deciding tonight.
Under the terms of the legislation that we are being asked to support, it will be difficult to achieve the target of 50 per cent. of recruits being Roman Catholics and to ensure that the section of the community that is bracketed

as non-Catholic gets the justice that it, too, deserves. How are we to do that? The Government must not duck these issues; they must tell us exactly what they intend to do.
Who will tell the House authoritatively that non-Catholics will join the police force envisaged in the Bill? I have not heard from SDLP Members that they will call on the people who support them to join as the Bill becomes law. Will it reach the standards that they have set? If the Bill is passed tonight, will they tell us that they will be able to stand up to their constituency and say, "Yes, you should join this police force"?
We know exactly where Sinn Fein-IRA stands: it says that it will not make any call to its constituency until everything else is completed. When will the process be completed? How far away is that date? It seems a very long way away, because when something is done, something else is asked for, and when that is done, something else is asked for. When will we have recruitment to the new force? If the Roman Catholic people are not urged by their leaders to join, they will not do so. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann is right to say that there must be a call from the leaders of that community, because people will decide to join the police not after reading the Bill, but when their leadership says that they may join.
The House could have a long debate about why Roman Catholic people have not joined the police force. I have constituents who are members of the RUC; they cannot go to their own homes, and their parents have to visit them in England. People who face such intimidation will not join the police force, no matter what it is called. The House needs to address those issues.

Mrs. Fyfe: When I said that the Lord Chancellor was wrong, I was referring to the question of selecting and electing Members of Parliament, not to taking on employees. The equal treatment directive is pretty straightforward and simply says that an employer is entitled to take positive action to bring into employment people who have been under-represented. I would be surprised if my colleagues on the Front Bench had not checked that out before presenting their Bill.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: The official Opposition share all the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) about the way the Bill stands. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) add to the categories that we believe fall foul of European law and of the European convention on human rights as incorporated into our law.
We considered this issue in great detail in Committee. When we considered whether these measures were compliant, it was noteworthy that the Minister was remarkably opaque on the subject. He said:
The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to previous explanations.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 June 2000; c. 307.]
On checking the entirety of Hansard for that occasion, I found no explanations as to how this part of the Bill satisfies the Amsterdam treaty and the directives that are likely to arise. There is no evidence that it does. The maximum that the right hon. Gentleman was able to say was that "our European partners"—I think that that was the expression—would be sympathetic and would


therefore find a way out for the Government from their dilemma. It was odd that the European Court of Human Rights and how it might interpret such a flagrant breach of directives, and the Amsterdam treaty, were never really mentioned.
My anxiety has always centred on the European convention on human rights. Article 9 is clear. It states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
How do the Government's current proposals match up to that?
The Government are proposing to create a pool. Into it will go those who are qualified to join the police service. However, they will not be allowed to join having passed on qualification. They will be obliged to wait until the Government consider that they are in the right place on the religious quota to be admitted. In this world there is discrimination both direct and indirect. There is no point in saying, "We are not interfering with the way that you exercise your religious belief", if by virtue of the way in which people exercise their beliefs they will be discriminated against in the workplace when applying to join the police service.
All the entrants who come forward to join the Royal Ulster Constabulary—or the police service, or whatever it may be called—will each receive an assessment. It beggars belief that a lawyer will not trawl through the assessments to point out the inconsistencies of one person being favoured as against another on the ground of his religion. As I said to the Minister in Committee, I hope not entirely flippantly, what happens if somebody having been admitted to the pool decides to change his religious faith? The Minister suggested that he thought the person might drown, out of uncertainty. However, that is a question that he will have to answer, because at some stage precisely that problem is likely to arise. When it does, how will that person be treated thereafter?
There are many other inconsistencies in the way in which the Bill is drafted. The most obvious and notable is that it divides the community into two equal camps of 50 per cent., which neither reflects society at large nor makes any allowance for any other minority group, or anyone not defined as Protestant or Catholic. It is difficult to imagine a criterion which would act as more of a red rag to a bull in a polarised community. It takes no account of other religious or ethnic minorities.
The Minister has the Opposition's support in the desire to see the number of Catholics in the RUC greatly increased. He knows that if there were to come a day when Catholics accounted for more than 50 per cent. of its numbers, that would not bother us one iota. We would not be concerned if they took advantage of the job opportunities and performed the service to the community that those allowed. However, the Government have chosen to introduce a measure that is discriminatory. The Minister admitted in Committee that it means positive

discrimination, and rather gloried in it. As a principle on which this House should conduct its business and pass legislation, I find that extraordinary.

Mr. McNamara: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, under the Fair Employment Act, it was his Government who introduced the concepts of perceived Protestant and perceived Roman Catholic?

Mr. Grieve: Neither this Government, the previous Government nor—I believe—any Government have passed a measure involving positive discrimination. The measures proposed by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, which are certainly affirmative in their help to the Catholic community, command support and are a tried and tested method that goes to the very limit of what in our view is possible and allowable under both international law and our European convention obligations. No previous Government have departed from that; I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman again if he thinks that some previous Government have done so. I do not believe that to be so.

Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question? Did not his Government, under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act, introduce the concept of individuals as perceived Protestants and perceived Roman Catholics?

Mr. Trimble: That was in 1976.

Mr. Grieve: I do not know who introduced that legislation; the right hon. Gentleman says that it was in 1976. None the less, no measure involving positive discrimination has been passed by the House.
In the light of the Patten report, it is a little surprising that the Government should have so glibly passed over the seriousness of the issue, simply saying, "Oh, we think that it's perfectly all right." We do not believe that it is. The Minister wants to provide great reassurance and would like to give chapter and verse on the matter, which I must say he did not in Committee. I will listen with interest, but in our view, the principle is completely flawed and wrong.

Mr. Corbyn: Given that the hon. Gentleman accepts that there is a huge imbalance between Protestants and Roman Catholics in the current police service of Northern Ireland, will he please explain what he would do to ensure some fairness in future? There has been systematic discrimination throughout many decades against Roman Catholic recruits. This legislation is designed to try to correct that imbalance. Does he have any solution to the problem?

Mr. Grieve: I do indeed. To begin with, I recollect that on Second Reading, as has been pointed out, hon. Members representing the SDLP stood up one by one to say that if the Bill were passed and acceptable to them, they would go to the marketplace, even in west Belfast, and encourage—and succeed in encouraging—Catholics to join the police service. That is very close to the words of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon); I remember them well because they were eloquent. Such action in itself would make a major contribution to


breaking the ice, and the logjam. There is also affirmative action that could be carried out that would be proper, and would not offend against human rights legislation.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman inform us who he thinks might speak best and most accurately for Catholics—a political party known as the SDLP or the Catholic Church?

Mr. Grieve: That is a question that I do not propose to answer. I raised the hon. Gentleman's position because I regard him as a man of complete integrity, and I listened very carefully to what he said on Second Reading. I took it that if he was satisfied with the Bill and said on behalf of the Catholic community that Catholics should join the police service, many who had previously been deterred would do so. Whether it is he who takes such action, or whether it is priests of the Roman Catholic Church or other members of the community at large, seems to matter very little.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman again for giving way. I note the points that he has made, and if I am lucky enough to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will deal with that matter. In the interests of whatever harmony is left, may I refer the hon. Gentleman, without being specific, to an article written on behalf of the Catholic hierarchy some weeks ago in the name of Father Tim Bartlett? I ask him to study it carefully. I will answer, as will my colleagues, for our political party and our political stance. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the article before he goes much further.

Mr. Grieve: I will read the article. If it suggests that positive discrimination is the solution, I do not mind who it comes from—I will reject it.
We can leave aside the European Court of Justice and the European convention on human rights. It has not been a principle or practice in this country to engage in positive discrimination. That will bring in its wake every kind of resentment, which is the very thing that we want to break down. I cannot think of a worse way of starting a new police service on its course with the good wishes of the House, than to saddle it with such an incubus at the outset.

Mr. Ingram: In Committee, I paid many tributes to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). Not tonight. Many assertions have been made and points of view strongly expressed by the hon. Gentleman which seem to ignore the fact that, through the Bill, we seek to establish the principles that Patten identified and which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) tried to make the hon. Gentleman understand.
I could ask a simple question of those who oppose what we seek to do. Which EU directive do they have in mind? None. There is no EU directive that prohibits what we seek to do through the Bill—not one.

Mr. Grieve: The Minister is correct that, as matters stand at present, there is no EU directive, and I did not suggest that there was. The Amsterdam treaty sets the framework, and there is a directive in contemplation from which the Government will have to seek a derogation or some form of accommodation, as I understand it, in order

to allow the matter to proceed. As I pointed out to the Minister, the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act—

Mr. Ingram: I know that the hon. Gentleman is used to being paid by the minute, but he answered the question in the first few words of his response. There is no EU directive that the Bill contravenes. He is right to say that the matter is being examined. We said in Committee, and I repeat, that with our European partners, we will look at the ways in which we can deal with the issue.
That seems to be a sensible way forward. The EU has been a tremendous supporter of the peace process in Northern Ireland. In our dealings with our European partners, we have found time and again that they are prepared to accept the ways in which the issue must be addressed to move the peace process forward. They live in world of reality, not bombast and rhetoric such as we have heard in the debate.
Let us deal with reality. I have heard it said that the Bill is not ECHR-compliant. It is ECHR-compliant, otherwise that statement would not appear in the Bill. I have said before from the Dispatch Box that no Minister can knowingly act illegally. That is the case. If there were any doubt, we would not make that attestation, nor would we stand here and defend that position. In dealing with the subject of our discussion, we have heard much rhetoric and many strong views, but let us tackle reality.
The purpose of amendments Nos. 301, 52, 53 and 54 is to remove from the Bill the provisions that allow for the so-called 50:50 recruitment arrangements. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) has tabled alternative new clauses 1 and 2, which would provide for a programme of affirmative action to encourage a higher rate of Catholic application.
We debated the issue at considerable length in Committee. Perhaps the hon. Member for Beaconsfield was not happy with the result, but he cannot deny that we had a heavyweight debate in Committee. We trawled over the same ground that we are now discussing. Let me reiterate the Government's position. The parties to the Belfast agreement considered it imperative that the police service, if it is to be fully effective, should be representative of the community it polices. As matters stand, only 8 per cent. of the RUC is from the Catholic community.
The Government recognise that victimisation and intimidation have unquestionably played a significant role in depressing the rate of Catholic application to the RUC. As Patten said, we must address that. In paragraph 15.2, the Patten report stated:
The key to making that police service representative of those communities—indeed the key to the successful implementation of nearly everything in this report—is that the leaders of those communities now actively encourage their young people to join the police service.
That acknowledges that not only the Governments, but all parties and all parts of the community in Northern Ireland must address the problem.
Neither Patten nor the Government intend 50:50 recruitment to represent an alternative to affirmative action. Paragraph 15.8 states clearly that the recruitment agency, for which clause 42 provides, should
advertise imaginatively and persistently, particularly in places likely to reach groups who are under-represented in the police. As at present the advertisements should make it clear that the police


Service wants to attract more Catholics and women. But every effort should be made to get this message across, through local newspapers, magazines, club and community centre notice boards and any other way that can be found to reach the target groups directly.
Paragraph 15.6 of the report recommends cadet schemes; paragraph 15.11 recommends flexible working and child care schemes.
The Police Federation, in its response to the Patten report, said that it would take 30 years to achieve a balance through affirmative action alone. I am therefore surprised, especially as the matter was debated in Committee, that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has tabled the amendment. I recounted the Government's firm determination to take forward affirmative action programmes. We also needed to move the whole process forward and introduce the 50:50 recruitment policy.
The policy is exceptional and deals with an unusual set of circumstances. We are not discussing Dudley, Bracknell or Montgomeryshire, but Northern Ireland, where there are tremendously deep divisions. Patten realised that that needed to be addressed. The signatories to the Belfast agreement gave that an impetus. The Government are delivering the policy. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will not press their amendments.

Mr. Thompson: Is not it hypocritical for the Government to speak in those terms when on 23 and 24 March, in a joint statement at the Lisbon European Council meeting, the United Kingdom and Irish Governments urged member states to
make early progress on the Commission's Article 13 anti-discrimination proposals?
Is not it hypocritical to say that a change must be made?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's words represent no slur on the Minister. The Minister is not a hypocrite—no hon. Member is.

Mr. Ingram: Thank you very much for that defence, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to respond robustly, but I simply say that of course the party that I represent has a proud tradition of fighting discrimination, in and out of government. I am not so sure that many of those who have raised these issues tonight would have stood in line against many of the types of discrimination that we have had to fight against. As we are dealing with exceptional circumstances, we will deal with friendly partners who understand the exceptional need. We cannot predict the outcome, but we will be progressive and constructive—not to undermine the principles of any future directive, but to place what we seek to do in Northern Ireland in context.
Government amendments Nos. 133 and 135 would require 50:50 recruitment to be applied in the recruitment of police support staff when six or more vacancies at a similar level had to be filled. The threshold figure was previously stipulated as 10. As the figure is to be reduced, it is reasonable to enable the Secretary of State to set aside 50:50 recruitment—after consulting the board and the Chief Constable—when it simply is not possible. We believe that to be a sensible precaution.
The hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady), for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and for Newry and Armagh tabled amendments Nos. 323 to 325, which would reduce the threshold to two with a proviso that the quota mechanism be applied where it is practicable to do so when the number of vacancies is five or fewer. The Chief Constable would also be required to publish information on such appointments annually.
The issue was debated in Committee when I said that the Government were prepared to be flexible. We have looked at it again and I am persuaded that the figure can reasonably be reduced to six. However, although we have moved from a threshold of 10, I am not persuaded to reduce the figure to two. To reduce it further would virtually set aside the merit principle. Furthermore, at such a low level, the quota mechanism would produce a minimal impact on overall composition and in practical terms could prove impossible to apply when such small numbers are involved, particularly if an odd number of posts—three, for example—had to be filled. I hope that the amended threshold figure of six will be seen as a workable solution and I ask the House to accept our amendment on that basis.
As to the publication of religious monitoring and composition information, the police service will continue to adhere to the terms of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 and guidance, as appropriate, from the Equality Commission. I do not believe that there is any need to put any of those issues into the legislation.
Government amendments Nos. 130 and 127 rectify technical defects. Amendment No. 130 would require the Secretary of State to consult the Policing Board, the Chief Constable, the Equality Commission and the police associations in making regulations for the recruitment function. The Bill already requires the Secretary of State to consult those bodies when making regulations in respect of the recruitment agent. It appears entirely sensible that they should also have the opportunity to comment on the detail of the recruitment function itself—for example, advertising of vacancies, testing of applicants and so on.
Amendment No. 127 would enable the recruitment agency, under clause 42, to recruit all officers and support staff appointed by the Chief Constable rather than only trainee officers at constable level. Senior officers and civilians are not covered because, of course, they are appointed by the board.
I ask the House to accept Government amendments Nos. 127, 130, 133 and 135 and to reject all other amendments. Given the time scale, we probably will not debate new clause 6 and I give the House notice that the Government do not intend to move amendment No. 197.

Mr. Öpik: Taken together, new clauses 1 and 2 and amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 301 achieve the Government's objective, but they do so fairly. They give everyone in Northern Ireland a fair deal by attacking the problem of applications rather than dealing with recruitment at the end of the process, which is the wrong target. The Minister said that there are deep divisions in Northern Ireland. Our concern is that the Government proposals will make some of those divisions worse.
Look how far we have come, and how close we are to a new police service for Northern Ireland. The proposals are radical and ground-breaking, with some genuine human rights breakthroughs. We have had agreements, progress has been made and consensus has been reached between groupings that it was previously unthinkable could work together. We are offering a solution that achieves the strategy that the Government are trying to implement without introducing new discriminations in the process.
Are the Government so determined to do it their way, even if that goes against a sense of natural justice, contravenes European legislation—as it will do from 2002—and includes an element of positive discrimination, as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said? That is not the sort of fairness we are seeking.
The Minister says that affirmative action would take 30 years, as if it is outside our control. It should be within our control, and we should take our responsibility seriously rather than making a prediction and introducing an unjust system instead.
I have tried to be nice to the Government, and I have tried to help. I even supported the guillotine motion, because it seemed like a good idea at the time, but perhaps not any longer. This is a matter of practice and a matter of principle. The Minister has created an alliance between the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and me. It should seriously concern the Government that they have managed to bring the Democratic Unionists, the Ulster Unionists, the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats together.
The Minister said that there has been much bombast and rhetoric in the debate. He is mistaken, because what bothers many hon. Members is a matter of principle.

Mr. Ingram: I asked hon. Members in presenting their amendments and justifying their arguments to tell me on which EU directive they based their case, and the hon. Gentleman has not done so.

Mr. Öpik: It is on a piece of paper that will come to hand in a moment. There is no doubt that this matter is being discussed by the European Parliament. The proposals relate to a Council directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and the proposal for a Council directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. I shall write to the Minister to give him a fuller reply.
The Government have done so well with the Bill, and they have listened, but this is the tough test. This is how the Government can prove that they are serious about working consensually towards a better Northern Ireland police service. The package on offer in the amendments and new clauses is proactive, sound and logical and takes into account discrimination not just against Catholics but against all the other minorities who are not properly represented in the Northern Ireland police force. It is not about cooking the quotas; it is about opening the doors to all those unrepresented groups in Northern Irish police life.
My challenge to the Minister is to open the doors rather than slam them in other people's faces while trying to cure an injustice. My challenge to the House is for once genuinely to understand that this principle is all-pervading.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 307.

Division No. 256]
[10.35 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gale, Roger


Allan, Richard
Garnier, Edward


Amess, David
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Gibb, Nick


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Gidley, Sandra


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Gill, Christopher


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Baldry, Tony
Gorrie, Donald


Ballard, Jackie
Gray, James


Beggs, Roy
Green, Damian


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Greenway, John


Bercow, John
Grieve, Dominic


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Blunt, Crispin
Hammond, Philip


Body, Sir Richard
Hancock, Mike


Boswell, Tim
Harris, Dr Evan


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Harvey, Nick


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hawkins, Nick


Brady, Graham
Hayes, John


Brake, Tom
Heald, Oliver


Brand, Dr Peter
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Brazier, Julian
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Breed, Colin
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Browning, Mrs Angela
Horam, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Burnett, John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Burns, Simon
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Burstow, Paul
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Butterfill, John
Jenkin, Bernard


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)



Key, Robert


Cash, William
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie



Kirkwood, Archy


Chidgey, David
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Chope, Christopher
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clappison, James
Lansley, Andrew


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Leigh, Edward


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Letwin, Oliver



Lidington, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Collins, Tim
Livsey, Richard


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cotter, Brian
Llwyd, Elfyn


Cran, James
Loughton, Tim


Curry, Rt Hon David
Luff, Peter


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Donaldson, Jeffrey
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Duncan Smith, Iain
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Evans, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Maginnis, Ken


Fabricant, Michael
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Fallon, Michael
May, Mrs Theresa


Fearn, Ronnie
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Flight, Howard
Moore, Michael


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Moss, Malcolm


Fox, Dr Liam
Norman, Archie


Fraser, Christopher
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)






Öpik, Lembit
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Paice, James
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Pickles, Eric
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Prior, David
Thompson, William


Randall, John
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Townend, John


Rendel, David
Tredinnick, David


Robathan, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tyler, Paul


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Tyrie, Andrew


Ruffley, David
Viggers, Peter


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Walter, Robert


St Aubyn, Nick
Waterson, Nigel


Sanders, Adrian
Webb, Steve


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Wells, Bowen


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Welsh, Andrew


Soames, Nicholas
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Whittingdale, John


Spicer, Sir Michael
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Spring, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Willetts, David


Steen, Anthony
Wilshire, David


Streeter, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Stunell, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Swayne, Desmond
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Swinney, John



Syms, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Sir Robert Smith and



Mr. Peter Atkinson.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clapham, Michael


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)



Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Battle, John
Clwyd, Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Coaker, Vernon


Beard, Nigel
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cohen, Harry


Begg, Miss Anne
Coleman, Iain


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Colman, Tony


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Connarty, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Berry, Roger
Corbett, Robin


Best, Harold
Corbyn, Jeremy


Betts, Clive
Corston, Jean


Blackman, Liz
Cousins, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cox, Tom


Blizzard, Bob
Crausby, David


Borrow, David
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cummings, John


Bradshaw, Ben
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dalyell, Tam


Browne, Desmond
Darvill, Keith


Buck, Ms Karen
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Burden, Richard
Davidson, Ian


Butler, Mrs Christine
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)



Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dawson, Hilton


Cann, Jamie
Dean, Mrs Janet


Casale, Roger
Denham, John


Caton, Martin
Dobbin, Jim


Cawsey, Ian
Donohoe, Brian H


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Doran, Frank


Chaytor, David
Dowd, Jim


Chisholm, Malcolm
Drew, David





Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lammy, David


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Edwards, Huw
Laxton, Bob


Efford, Clive
Lepper, David


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Leslie, Christopher


Etherington, Bill
Levitt, Tom


Fisher, Mark
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Flynn, Paul
Linton, Martin


Follett, Barbara
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lock, David


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Love, Andrew


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McAvoy, Thomas


Foulkes, George
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Fyfe, Maria
McDonagh, Siobhain


Galloway, George
Macdonald, Calum


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McDonnell, John


Gerrard, Neil
McFall, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
McGrady, Eddie


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Godman, Dr Norman A
McIsaac, Shona


Godsiff, Roger
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Goggins, Paul
Mackinlay, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
McNamara, Kevin


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McNulty, Tony


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hain, Peter
McWalter, Tony


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McWilliam, John


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mallaber, Judy


Hanson, David
Mallon, Seamus


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Healey, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Heppell, John
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hesford, Stephen
Martlew, Eric


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hill, Keith
Meale, Alan


Hood, Jimmy
Merron, Gillian


Hope, Phil
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hopkins, Kelvin
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Miller, Andrew


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Moffatt, Laura


Hoyle, Lindsay
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Humble, Mrs Joan
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hume, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hurst, Alan
Morley, Elliot


Hutton, John
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Iddon, Dr Brian



Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Mountford, Kali


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mudie, George


Jamieson, David
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jenkins, Brian
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Naysmith, Dr Doug



Norris, Dan


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
O'Neill, Martin



Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pearson, Ian


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pendry, Tom


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Perham, Ms Linda


Kemp, Fraser
Pickthall, Colin


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pike, Peter L


Khabra, Piara S
Plaskitt, James


Kidney, David
Pond, Chris


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pope, Greg


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Pound, Stephen


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)






Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Stringer, Graham


Purchase, Ken
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Quinn, Lawrie
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles



Rammell, Bill
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Rapson, Syd
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Raynsford, Nick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Timms, Stephen


Rooney, Terry
Todd, Mark


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Touhig, Don


Rowlands, Ted
Trickett, Jon


Roy, Frank
Truswell, Paul


Ruane, Chris
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Ruddock, Joan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Salter, Martin
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sawford, Phil
Tynan, Bill


Shaw, Jonathan
Vis, Dr Rudi


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Walley, Ms Joan


Skinner, Dennis
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Watts, David



White, Brian


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Snape, Peter
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Soley, Clive
Winnick, David


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wood, Mike


Spellar, John
Woolas, Phil


Squire, Ms Rachel
Worthington, Tony


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wray, James


Steinberg, Gerry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stevenson, George
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)



Stinchcombe, Paul
Tellers for the Noes:


Stoate, Dr Howard
Mr. Kevin Hughes and



Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being more than six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the allocation of time motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With the leave of the House, I will put together amendment No. 44, the remaining Government amendments with the exception of Nos. 197, 212 and 299, and Government new schedule 1.

Question put, That the amendments be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 8.

Division No. 257]
[10.51 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barron, Kevin


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Battle, John


Ainger, Nick
Bayley, Hugh


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Beard, Nigel


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Begg, Miss Anne


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bennett, Andrew F


Ashton, Joe
Berry, Roger


Atherton, Ms Candy
Best, Harold


Atkins, Charlotte
Betts, Clive


Ballard, Jackie
Blackman, Liz


Barnes, Harry
Blears, Ms Hazel





Blizzard, Bob
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Borrow, David
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradshaw, Ben
Foulkes, George


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fyfe, Maria


Browne, Desmond
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Buck, Ms Karen
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Burden, Richard
Gerrard, Neil


Burnett, John
Gibson, Dr Ian


Burstow, Paul
Gidley, Sandra


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Godsiff, Roger



Goggins, Paul


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cann, Jamie
Gorrie, Donald


Casale, Roger
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cawsey, Ian
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hain, Peter


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clapham, Michael
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hancock, Mike


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hanson, David



Harvey, Nick


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Healey, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clelland, David
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clwyd, Ann
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coaker, Vernon
Hepburn, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heppell, John


Cohen, Harry
Hesford, Stephen


Coleman, Iain
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Colman, Tony
Hill, Keith


Connarty, Michael
Hood, Jimmy


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hope, Phil


Corbett, Robin
Hopkins, Kelvin


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Corston, Jean
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cotter, Brian
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Crausby, David
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hurst, Alan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hutton, John


Cummings, John
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darvill, Keith
Jenkins, Brian


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davidson, Ian



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)



Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dawson, Hilton



Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Denham, John
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Donohoe, Brian H
Keeble, Ms Sally


Doran, Frank
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dowd, Jim
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Drew, David
Kemp, Fraser


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Khabra, Piara S


Edwards, Huw
Kidney, David


Efford, Clive
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ellman, Mrs Louise
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Etherington, Bill
Kirkwood, Archy


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fearn, Ronnie
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fisher, Mark
Lammy, David


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Flynn, Paul
Laxton, Bob






Lepper, David
Purchase, Ken


Leslie, Christopher
Quinn, Lawrie


Levitt, Tom
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rammell, Bill


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rapson, Syd


Linton, Martin
Raynsford, Nick


Livsey, Richard
Rendel, David


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Lock, David
Rooney, Terry


Love, Andrew
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McAvoy, Thomas
Rowlands, Ted


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Roy, Frank


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ruane, Chris


Macdonald, Calum
Ruddock, Joan


McDonnell, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McFall, John
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Salter, Martin


McIsaac, Shona
Sanders, Adrian


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sawford, Phil


Mackinlay, Andrew
Shaw, Jonathan


McNamara, Kevin
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McNulty, Tony
Skinner, Dennis


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McWalter, Tony



McWilliam, John
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Snape, Peter


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Soley, Clive


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spellar, John


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Martlew, Eric
Steinberg, Gerry


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stevenson, George


Meale, Alan
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Merron, Gillian
Stinchcombe, Paul


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Stoate, Dr Howard


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Miller, Andrew
Stringer, Graham


Moffatt, Laura
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stunell, Andrew


Moore, Michael
Swinney, John


Moran, Ms Margaret
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)



Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Temple-Morris, Peter


Mountford, Kali
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mudie, George
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Timms, Stephen


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Todd, Mark


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Norris, Dan
Touhig, Don


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Trickett, Jon


Olner, Bill
Truswell, Paul


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Öpik, Lembit
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pearson, Ian
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pendry, Tom
Tyler, Paul


Perham, Ms Linda
Tynan, Bill


Pickthall, Colin
Vaz, Keith


Pike, Peter L
Vis, Dr Rudi


Plaskitt, James
Walley, Ms Joan


Pond, Chris
Ward, Ms Claire


Pope, Greg
Wareing, Robert N


Pound, Stephen
Watts, David


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Webb, Steve


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Welsh, Andrew





White, Brian
Worthington, Tony


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Wray, James



Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Winnick, David



Wood, Mike
Tellers for the Ayes:


Woolas, Phil
Mr. Mike Hall and



Mr. David Jamieson.


NOES


Beggs, Roy
Trimble, Rt Hon David


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Maginnis, Ken



Robertson, Laurence
Tellers for the Noes:


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Rev. Ian Paisley and


Thompson, William
Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Patten report speaks to a very different Northern Ireland from that which we have known in the past. The Good Friday agreement provided the basis for ending 30 years of conflict in Northern Ireland and the days when the pillars of the state in Northern Ireland failed to represent the society that those pillars served. Chief among them, in nationalist eyes, was the Royal Ulster Constabulary—the police service in Northern Ireland.
Like the Good Friday agreement that spawned it, the report of the Patten commission promised nothing less than a new beginning. It promised a modern, civic police service rooted in all parts of the community, drawing strength and legitimacy from all parts of the community. With this Bill, our task is to bring the vision of the Patten report to life—to reality—and to draw a line under recent history, but not to forget, and certainly not to disown, that history.
Three hundred and two officers of the RUC have lost their lives. Thousands more have been injured. Families and friends suffered bereavement. I know from my meetings, contacts and encounters with those friends and families how the terrible pain of that bereavement continues in the lives of those people—mothers, wives, offspring.
The courage of the RUC in the face of such sacrifice was immense; I think that the whole House will want to salute it. The professionalism of RUC officers was extraordinary, and we respect it. It is for that reason that, in the Bill, we will create the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross Foundation. That will mean that the name of the RUC, its proud history and record will live on in perpetuity and will be for ever honoured.
Over the last few weeks, and particularly over the last five days or so, in Drumcree and across Northern Ireland, in the face of bottles, bomb blasts, blast bombs, and acid squirted in the faces of RUC officers, we have seen that professionalism again and again and again, night in and night out, as hoodlums—thugs—have hijacked what I regard as legitimate protest. I believe that we will all want to pay tribute to the RUC for bearing the enormous brunt of that violence over the last week.
The RUC has paid a price in more than one way. Its members have certainly paid a price with their lives but, over the past 30 years, the fact that the RUC has been the bulwark against a brutal terrorist campaign has led to its being identified more with one side of the community than with the other. That identification may not be deserved—it has certainly not been sought—but that is the perception of a substantial section of the community, and it is a perception that, in the Bill, we are addressing and seeking to correct.
The Patten commission's starting point was that the police service must respect the values and reflect the pluralism of Northern Ireland's society as a whole, not just a majority of that society but the whole of it. The police service must enjoy widespread support from, and must be seen as an integral part of, the community as a whole. It must do that if it is to be an effective police service. That is very hard when there is a 9:1 religious imbalance in the composition of the police.
The hard reality of policing in Northern Ireland, and the reason why policing was remitted to the Patten commission in the first place, is that, while 80 per cent. of Protestants are content with policing, less than 50 per cent. of Catholics are satisfied. That is shown in a number of opinion surveys. Eighty-eight per cent. of the police are from one section of the community, in spite of the efforts of the Chief Constable and the Police Authority to achieve a more balanced service. Those efforts have been great and they have been sustained, but they have not been successful.
Of course, intimidation by the IRA has been a factor in preventing Catholics, and discouraging nationalists, from joining the RUC; but it is only one factor. Lack of community support and of identity with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, fear that they would lose contact with family and with friends, fear that they would have to submerge their Catholic identity or nationalist politics if they were to join the RUC, and fear of harassment in their community or within the RUC—all these have played a part.
I did not simply take the Patten report at face value. I looked behind it. I looked into it. I talked to people right across the community, and made my own judgments about what was right and what needed to be done. I was persuaded that radical changes were needed to redress that extreme religious imbalance that has resulted in the RUC's being unrepresentative of the community as a whole, and therefore all the less effective as a police service as a consequence.
The radical changes that needed to be made included changing the name. That is a difficult decision, and it is a painful decision for people right across the RUC family. Indeed, it was a painful decision for me, and one that I would not have taken if I did not believe that it was essential to the new beginning that Patten envisages. If I had felt that we could have gone ahead and created a new start, and created a new beginning for policing without changing the name, I most certainly would have done that.
I am also persuaded that widespread support means not alienating the Protestant and Unionist traditions in the community. Yes, they must accept change and, in this case, radical change, but we must be sensitive to the fears and concerns of all in the community of both traditions. Change must be built on consensus wherever we can achieve it. That is an important principle to apply to the

implementation of Patten. Wherever it is possible to secure agreement and consensus, draw the traditions together and put them behind the changes that we want to see, we should strenuously seek to do so and we should not give up easily when at first we do not succeed.
Patten was clear that the RUC was not being disbanded. That argument was made strenuously by some in Northern Ireland, and it was rejected. Patten was also clear that the link between the RUC and the new police service must be recognised. It is in his report. For that reason, because I want to ease the transition in the best way that I can, because I want to build as wide a consensus for change as possible and because I want to address the fears and concerns of both traditions and people across the community, we have accepted a description moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) which incorporates the Royal Ulster Constabulary, in effect, in the title deeds of the new service.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary, as Patten himself recommended—he wanted that link established between the RUC and the new police service—is being carried forward. The body of constables known as the RUC will form part of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and it will be incorporated in the new police service. At the same time, we have introduced a new name—the Police Service of Northern Ireland. We did that, having accepted the amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman. The name "Police Service of Northern Ireland" will be used for all operational and working purposes, wherever and in whatever circumstances when the police interface with the public.
It is critical that we strike the right balance throughout in the way in which we carry forward the changes. People across the community must know and respect the officers in the new service. Both sides must feel that the service genuinely reflects their values, needs and traditions. They must emphatically not feel that, by joining the service, let alone supporting it, they are in some way betraying members of their tradition and their side of the community in Northern Ireland.
Ultimately, what the police do—how representative they are; how they are trained and equipped—matters more than what they are called. The Government are determined to ensure that the police have the necessary resources and capabilities to protect the community and uphold law and order.
Hon. Members have referred to what they sometimes call the mafia society in Northern Ireland. It is certainly a society that carries the legacy of 30 years of conflict and the operation, persistence, and contamination of paramilitary organisations. Under the new political dispensation, we have the opportunity for society as a whole and its policing service to unite in standing up to, and facing down, each and every one of those paramilitary organisations. If we do not, we will never succeed in creating the decent, civic society in Northern Ireland to which we all aspire.
The Government are determined, therefore, that the policing service that is being created is not simply rebadged or renamed, but is a truly effective, capable policing service. It is true that, in a sense, the Patten report was an important part of conflict resolution in Northern Ireland—quite rightly. That is why it was spawned by the Good Friday agreement.
Equally, what the Patten report and its implementation must be about is, above all, efficient and effective policing, to cope with the threat and the dangers that persist in Northern Ireland. In some cases, some interpretation of the Patten report has been needed. Patten did not give a detailed blueprint for everything. In some cases, also, we have been able to move forward and implement Patten without legislation; not every change, alteration, modification, needs to be provided for in law.
Indeed, Patten himself did not contend that his report spelled out every particular, and in parts he deliberately avoided being too prescriptive on the detail, so as to allow other voices to be heard. Those other voices have been heard since the report was published, and they will continue to be heard as we proceed along the path of its implementation.
So when we introduced the Bill on 16 May, we acknowledged that it would need some changes and adjustments. I never said at the time that the Bill was the last word. It was the first stab—I happen to think that it was a good, honourable and faithful stab—at implementing the Patten report. It does not deserve some of the descriptions made of it, in many cases—not all—for straightforward ulterior political purposes by some individuals in Northern Ireland who never had, and never will have, any intention of supporting the police, reformed, renamed, rebadged or otherwise.
I have listened to constructive comments on the Bill and have made, and shall continue to make, where the argument is persuasive, necessary changes to meet legitimate concerns. Indeed, on a number of points, as will be known to hon. Members who followed the Bill's progress through its Committee stage, we have acted: in relation to the Policing Board, its objectives, its planning, the code of ethics and other codes of behaviour and operation, and on reports and inquiries by the board. I have shifted the balance since the Bill was published to reflect concerns that there were too many safeguards. I think that I struck the balance in the wrong place. There were too many limitations. I have listened and I have moved.
The wording of the oath is now more in line with Patten, and all serving officers are required to understand the new oath and the need to carry out their duties in accordance with it. Those who made that case were right, and we have moved to accommodate their view. We have also removed the 10-year cut-off for 50:50 recruitment. I, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have been, and remain, open to argument, to further debate and change, which no doubt will take place as the Bill leaves this House and moves on to the other place. That is because I recognise the historic importance of this opportunity and of this legislation that we have been considering in Committee and again today.
This is perhaps the best chance that we shall have to create an outstanding modern police service, one that will be a model of its kind for the rest of the world to emulate, and to allow the police to change and develop in a way that they have wanted for years. The RUC did not want to be trapped in the identity, the character, of a security force. The RUC members and officers themselves, led by an able and outstanding Chief Constable, wanted to evolve into a community-based partnership policing

service as circumstances and conditions allowed, to make the transition from an anti-terrorist security force to a community-focused and community-based police service; in other words, a new police service for a new political dispensation, a new society, that is emerging, with difficulty, in Northern Ireland. That is Patten's vision and I believe that the Bill is entirely faithful to it. It is a full, honourable and faithful implementation of every part of Patten's recommendations. That is why I commend it to the House.

Mr. MacKay: When I opposed the guillotine motion a few hours ago, I described this as a sad day for Parliament and a sad day for Northern Ireland. I deeply regret that everything that I said has been borne out in the course of the debate.
We have managed to debate only three groups of amendments, and seven groups were not debated at all. On the first significant group of amendments that was debated—it was on the Policing Board and district policing partnerships—no votes were taken on important amendments moved by myself, my colleagues and the Ulster Unionists because we did not reach them on the amendment paper. That is not a proper way to scrutinise a Bill.
The guillotine motion was debated briskly by everyone who took part in the debate on it.

Shona McIsaac: It took two hours.

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Lady, who was not present for one moment of the debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Apologise."] She was not present, and I have no intention of apologising. She says that the debate on the guillotine motion took two hours. It took marginally less than that, but the truth is that many Members wished legitimately to express their concern that a Bill that had moved briskly through Committee in 11 sittings was being guillotined. They legitimately said that there was not sufficient opportunity in the guillotine motion to debate the legitimate amendments that were on the amendment paper in the names of right hon. and hon. Members from a variety of parties on both sides of the House. We have been proved right, because only three of the seven groups of amendments were discussed.

Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): I wonder why.

Mr. MacKay: The Northern Ireland Whip says that he wonders why. I shall do my best to answer him by returning to the point that I was making when I was interrupted by a sedentary intervention from the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac).
Debate on the guillotine motion proceeded briskly with each Member speaking briefly. We then moved on to the first group of the amendments on what you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the rest of the House will agree are serious issues, such as who should sit on the Policing Board and on the partnerships. Rightly, the Minister of State nods


his agreement. In that debate, everyone spoke briefly with one exception—the Minister took 51 minutes to reply. [Interruption.] I do not object to the fact that he took 51 minutes to reply, but there were relatively few interventions.
The Minister took 51 minutes to respond—I respect him for doing so—because many amendments had been debated. He had to respond to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) who, with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), had tabled a significant number of amendments about which they feel strongly. The Minister had to respond to the amendments that I spoke to on behalf of the official Opposition and to those that were spoken to by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). The Minister also responded to significant interventions from other Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland.—[Interruption.] There is no point in the Secretary of State tapping his watch: this is not our timetable, it is his. The Minister of State took 51 minutes to respond because significant issues had been raised and he was doing his best to reply properly. That illustrates why more time was necessary for debate on Report.

Mr. McDonnell: The right hon. Gentleman has missed the historic moment of today's events in that this is the first time that I have moved an amendment that has been accepted by the Government.

Mr. MacKay: It would be remiss of me not to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that because I know that his colleagues on the Treasury Bench do not often accept his amendments. Indeed, I suspect that this might be a unique occasion.
We had a response to only three groups of amendments, and the deeply significant amendments in the fourth group concerned the name of the RUC. I noted that the Secretary of State, in what were, by and large, sensitive and thoughtful remarks on Third Reading, spent most of his time discussing the name, and I suspect that that was the speech that he would have liked to have made in speaking to his amendments, which he was not able to do because of the guillotine motion moved by his Minister of State.
The trouble is that the Secretary of State said many things about the name—many of which I agree with and some of which he knows, from the amendments in my name, I do not agree with—but no Member is now able to discuss the name or the amendments relating to it. The guillotine chopped off all the remaining amendments, and there has been no discussion of them whatsoever.
When the other place receives the Bill, it will wish to scrutinise it in great detail, not least because this House has been unable to do so. That is a great pity, because if we had been given two days for Report and Third Reading, which legislation of this significance deserves, the Bill would have gone to the other place having been fully debated. I do not particularly blame the Secretary of State because he is not one of the business managers. I blame the business managers because they have completely lost control of Parliament. They are trying to thrust far too many Bills through the House in this Session and there cannot, therefore, be proper consideration of serious Bills such as this.
This has been a very sad day for Parliament and a very sad day for Northern Ireland. I hope that the other place will be able properly to debate amendments that we were unable to debate. [Interruption.] I think that the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), is saying that I do not mean that.

Helen Jackson: indicated dissent.

Mr. MacKay: I could not quite hear what the hon. Lady said, relatively loudly, from a sedentary position, but I will be happy to let her intervene. She does not want to intervene. Clearly the remark was not worth your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This has been a sad day and it is important that the other place properly debates the Bill and votes on it. Many Labour Members, particularly from the new intake, have not been present during most of the proceedings. The hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran), who takes an interest in Northern Ireland matters from time to time, did not turn up once during the earlier debates, but has been chattering away from a sedentary position. She seems to think that debate is wrong and rubber-stamping is right. One day she might learn otherwise, although I suspect that she will not because I doubt that she will be a Member of the next Parliament.
It is important that the other place takes careful note of what has happened tonight and of the lack of debate and votes. I look forward to returning to these deliberations when we eventually consider Lords amendments well into the autumn.

Mr. Mallon: I have sat in this House for about 16 years—right through Thatcherism, Majorism and the type of approach that ignored the political position of a very substantial section of the community in the north of Ireland. Tonight, I have heard that approach repeated. Tonight, I have heard the type of Majorism, Thatcherism and the ignoring of a position of people in the north of Ireland in a way that I never believed I would hear from these Benches. So be it.
Hearing such a speech is a matter of regret to me and to my party, because I and my colleagues know what its effect will be. I do not have to tell the House what the effect will be—the House knows—but it will come about because the Secretary of State will not persuade people to join the police service. He is not able to. I can tell him that, after tonight, he stands very little chance. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) will not be able to persuade people to join the new police service—not through any defect in himself, but because of the points that were made previously this evening.
Let us put the issue into context, in the sense that the Secretary of State focused on the change of name. Perhaps right hon. and hon. Members are not aware that the clause before us on the name of the new police service is draft No. 3. Draft No. 1 was ditched after Hillsborough. The Government's first draft was in accord absolutely and


totally with the new clause that I and my colleagues tabled in Committee. The Government voted against a new clause on the new name that they had themselves written. That is on record for anyone to read.
Draft No. 2 represented the Government's adoption of a Unionist motion, which I gravely suspect the Government also wrote a considerable time ago when the Hillsborough virus first set in. At least they tried to amend it with amendment No. 197, which they withdrew with inordinate haste tonight. The clause before us is mark 3 of the Government's statement on the name of the new police service. That would be a serious business in any piece of legislation, but it is much more serious in this one.
I shall briefly—I know that I have to be brief—refer to some of the allegations and accusations that have been made across the Floor tonight. I simply remind the House who Chris Patten was. He was not a Catholic nationalist from Northern Ireland; he was chairman of the Conservative party, a Cabinet Minister, a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, a European Union Commissioner and the Governor of Hong Kong. What did he say about the very essence of the matter—the joining of the police service? He said:
if you are going to get a police service which young Catholics as well as young Protestants…are going to join, then it can't be identified with the central political argument in Northern Ireland and it is as simple as that.
Those are not my words, but Chris Patten's. Yet the very basis upon which the Government propose to implement the Bill is a Unionist amendment.
I have my own views about the use of the terms "Catholics" and "Protestants" in relation to the Bill and the issue. I happen to believe that people are people, not religious tags. I referred to Chris Patten and who he is because I want to avoid that.
I believe that what has happened in the House tonight has done irreparable damage to the prospect of a new policing dispensation.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mallon: I do not have time to give way. In fairness, I have been sitting in the Chamber since 4.30 pm, waiting to make a contribution.
In an earlier intervention, I asked the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) who he would regard as the primary authority on what Catholics might do—a small political party such as the SDLP or the Catholic Church, through a spokesman and its hierarchy. I admire the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. At least sometimes, most times, almost always, he is honest, if honestly wrong on many issues. I believe that with regard to the terms in which Patten's comments are couched and also the objective of the Bill, we should consider what the Catholic Church has said through a spokesman, Father Tim Bartlett. It is on record, and I know that it represents the view of the Catholic hierarchy—[Interruption.] I will face any challenge on that.
I will amend the quote slightly, because I do not like being hurtful. Father Tim Bartlett stated:
The failure—
I put in the words "of this Government"—
to remain faithful to key elements of the Patten Report in the current Policing Bill and the willingness to subject a fundamental issue of civic justice—the right to representative policing—to the "spin and win" of politics, has provided one of the greatest obstacles to encouragement for young Catholics to have emerged in recent years.
Not my words, not a politically biased position, but the words of those who, with the SDLP, will have to try and ensure the involvement and the inclusion of the community that we represent in a new policing dispensation.
Why ignore those words? Why treat them as though they were never said? Why treat the issue as something that is clever in Westminster terms, but irrelevant in terms of persuading a divided community to be part of a policing dispensation?
I referred to the Hillsborough virus. It is a matter of record that the first clause of the Bill was exactly what we presented as a new clause in Committee. All of a sudden, when it looked as though decommissioning had at least begun to be resolved, what appeared on the table? Patten. No sooner was it on the table—within 10 minutes of acquiescence in the position on decommissioning—there was an immediate movement by the Government. What they had written was no longer relevant. What they had written was torn up. The Secretary of State shakes his head.

Mr. Mandelson: I am sad.

Mr. Mallon: So am I. As I said at the beginning, I have seen much political chicanery on the issue. This is the third time that the Secretary of State has made deals, and on the name of the new police service—

It being seven hours after the commencement of proceedings on the allocation of time motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER,pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the Bill be read the Third time:—

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Tom King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman's point of order to do with the Division?

Mr. King: Yes. Three hon. Members spoke on Third Reading on a hugely sensitive and important issue. The Secretary of State is in his place. He acknowledged in his speech the sensitivity of the issue. He also recognised, as did other hon. Members, that it has been impossible to comment on several important issues. We are currently holding a vote, but something will have to be done, or the people of Northern Ireland will not feel that the serious subject of our discussion has received the attention from this Parliament that it deserves.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hear that point of order, but the right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that our arrangements this evening were made under an Order that was agreed by the whole House.

The House having divided: Ayes 307, Noes 16.

Division No. 258]
[11.40 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Dalyell, Tam


Ainger, Nick
Darvill, Keith


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Davidson, Ian


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Atkins, Charlotte



Barnes, Harry
Dawson, Hilton


Barron, Kevin
Dean, Mrs Janet


Battle, John
Denham, John


Bayley, Hugh
Dobbin, Jim


Beard, Nigel
Donohoe, Brian H


Begg, Miss Anne
Doran, Frank


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dowd, Jim


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Drew, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Berry, Roger
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Best, Harold
Edwards, Huw


Betts, Clive
Efford, Clive


Blackman, Liz
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Blears, Ms Hazel
Etherington, Bill


Blizzard, Bob
Fearn, Ronnie


Borrow, David
Fisher, Mark


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Flynn, Paul


Bradshaw, Ben
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Browne, Desmond
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Buck, Ms Karen
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Burden, Richard
Foulkes, George


Burnett, John
Fyfe, Maria


Butler, Mrs Christine
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)



Gerrard, Neil


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gibson, Dr Ian


Cann, Jamie
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Casale, Roger
Godsiff, Roger


Caton, Martin
Goggins, Paul


Cawsey, Ian
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gorrie, Donald


Chaytor, David
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hain, Peter


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)



Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hancock, Mike


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hanson, David


Clelland, David
Harvey, Nick


Clwyd, Ann
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coaker, Vernon
Healey, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cohen, Harry
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coleman, Iain
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Colman, Tony
Hepburn, Stephen


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Heppell, John


Corbett, Robin
Hesford, Stephen


Corston, Jean
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cotter, Brian
Hill, Keith


Cousins, Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cox, Tom
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Crausby, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cummings, John
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hurst, Alan





Hutton, John
Mudie, George


Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jamieson, David
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jenkins, Brian
Norris, Dan


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Öpik, Lembit



Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pearson, Ian


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pendry, Tom


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Perham, Ms Linda


Kemp, Fraser
Pickthall, Colin


Kennedy, Jane (Wavetree)
Pike, Peter L


Khabra, Piara S
Plaskitt, James


Kidney, David
Pond, Chris


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pope, Greg


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Pound, Stephen


Kirkwood, Archy
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quinn, Lawrie


Lammy, David
Rammell, Bill


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Rapson, Syd


Laxton, Bob
Raynsford, Nick


Lepper, David
Rendel, David


Leslie, Christopher
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Levitt, Tom
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rooney, Terry


Linton, Martin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livsey, Richard
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Roy, Frank


Lock, David
Ruane, Chris


Love, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Salter, Martin


Macdonald, Calum
Sanders, Adrian


McFall, John
Sarwar, Mohammad


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sawford, Phil


McIsaac, Shona
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Skinner, Dennis


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


MacShane, Denis



Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Snape, Peter


Mallaber, Judy
Soley, Clive


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Spellar, John


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Steinberg, Gerry


Martlew, Eric
Stevenson, George


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Meale, Alan
Stinchcombe, Paul


Merron, Gillian
Stoate, Dr Howard


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Stringer, Graham


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Miller, Andrew
Stunell, Andrew


Moffatt, Laura
Swinney, John


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moore, Michael



Moran, Ms Margaret
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mountford, Kali
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)






Timms, Stephen
Watts, David


Todd, Mark
Webb, Steve


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Welsh, Andrew


Touhig, Don
White, Brian


Trickett, Jon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Truswell, Paul



Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Winnick, David


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Wood, Mike


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Woolas, Phil


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Worthington, Tony


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wray, James


Tynan, Bill
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Vis, Dr Rudi
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Walley, Ms Joan



Ward, Ms Claire
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wareing, Robert N
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and



Mr. Kevin Hughes.


NOES


Body, Sir Richard
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Cash, William
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Swayne, Desmond


Gill, Christopher
Townend, John


Gray, James
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)



Maginnis, Ken
Tellers for the Noes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. Roy Beggs and


Robertson, Laurence
Mr. William Thompson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Hon. Members: Object.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) (Variation) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 112.

Division No. 259]
[11.52 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Berry, Roger


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Best, Harold


Ainger, Nick
Betts, Clive


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Blackman, Liz


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Blears, Ms Hazel


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Blizzard, Bob


Atherton, Ms Candy
Borrow, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Barnes, Harry
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Barron, Kevin
Bradshaw, Ben


Battle, John
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Bayley, Hugh
Browne, Desmond


Beard, Nigel
Buck, Ms Karen


Begg, Miss Anne
Burden, Richard


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Burnett, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Butler, Mrs Christine





Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Hanson, David



Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Healey, John


Cann, Jamie
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Casale, Roger
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cawsey, Ian
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Chaytor, David
Heppell, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hesford, Stephen


Clapham, Michael
Hill, Keith


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)



Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Clelland, David
Humble, Mrs Joan


Clwyd, Ann
Hurst, Alan


Coaker, Vernon
Hutton, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cohen, Harry
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Coleman, Iain
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Colman, Tony
Jamieson, David


Connarty, Michael
Jenkins, Brian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Corston, Jean
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Cotter, Brian
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cox, Tom



Crausby, David
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dalyell, Tam
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Darvill, Keith
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Kidney, David


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Davidson, Ian
Kirkwood, Archy


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Kumar, Dr Ashok



Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Dawson, Hilton
Lammy, David


Dean, Mrs Janet
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Denham, John
Laxton, Bob


Dobbin, Jim
Lepper, David


Donohoe, Brian H
Leslie, Christopher


Doran, Frank
Levitt, Tom


Dowd, Jim
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Drew, David
Linton, Martin


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Livsey, Richard


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Efford, Clive
Lock, David


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Love, Andrew


Etherington, Bill
McAvoy, Thomas


Fisher, Mark
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
McDonagh, Siobhain


Flynn, Paul
Macdonald, Calum


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McDonnell, John


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McFall, John


Foulkes, George
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Fyfe, Maria
McIsaac, Shona


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gerrard, Neil
McNamara, Kevin


Gibson, Dr Ian
McNulty, Tony


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
MacShane, Denis


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mactaggart, Fiona


Godsiff, Roger
McWalter, Tony


Goggins, Paul
McWilliam, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mallaber, Judy


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hain, Peter
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Martlew, Eric


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Meale, Alan


Hancock, Mike
Merron, Gillian






Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Miller, Andrew
Snape, Peter


Moffatt, Laura
Soley, Clive


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Southworth, Ms Helen


Moran, Ms Margaret
Spellar, John


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morley, Elliot
Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stevenson, George



Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mountford, Kali
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mudie, George
Stoate, Dr Howard


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stringer, Graham


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stunell, Andrew


Norris, Dan
Swinney, John


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Olner, Bill



O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Öpik, Lembit
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Temple-Morris, Peter


Palmer, Dr Nick
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pearson, Ian
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Perham, Ms Linda
Timms, Stephen


Pickthall, Colin
Todd, Mark


Pike, Peter L
Touhig, Don


Plaskitt, James
Trickett, Jon


Pond, Chris
Truswell, Paul


Pope, Greg
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pound, Stephen
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Quinn, Lawrie
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rapson, Syd
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Raynsford, Nick
Tynan, Bill


Rendel, David
Vis, Dr Rudi


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Walley, Ms Joan


Rooney, Terry
Ward, Ms Claire


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wareing, Robert N


Rowlands, Ted
Watts, David


Roy, Frank
Webb, Steve


Ruane, Chris
Welsh, Andrew


Ruddock, Joan
White, Brian


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)



Salter, Martin
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sanders, Adrian
Wood, Mike


Sarwar, Mohammad
Woolas, Phil


Sawford, Phil
Worthington, Tony


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wray, James


Skinner, Dennis
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)




Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and



Mr. Kevin Hughes.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Cash, William


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)



Beggs, Roy
Clappison, James


Bercow, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Beresford, Sir Paul



Blunt, Crispin
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Boswell, Tim
Collins, Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Cran, James


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Brady, Graham
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Brazier, Julian
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Burns, Simon
Duncan Smith, Iain





Evans, Nigel
Paice, James


Fabricant, Michael
Paisley, Rev Ian


Fallon, Michael
Prior, David


Flight, Howard
Randall, John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fox, Dr Liam
Robathan, Andrew


Fraser, Christopher
Robertson, Laurence


Gale, Roger
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Garnier, Edward
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gibb, Nick
Ruffley, David


Gill, Christopher
St Aubyn, Nick


Gray, James
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Green, Damian
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Greenway, John
Soames, Nicholas


Grieve, Dominic
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hammond, Philip
Spring, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hayes, John
Steen, Anthony


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Streeter, Gary


Horam, John
Swayne, Desmond


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Syms, Robert


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Key, Robert
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Townend, John


Lansley, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Leigh, Edward
Trend, Michael


Letwin, Oliver
Tyrie, Andrew


Lidington, David
Viggers, Peter


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Wells, Bowen


Loughton, Tim
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Luff, Peter
Whittingdale, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wilkinson, John


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Moss, Malcolm



Nicholls, Patrick
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Mr. Peter Atkinson and


Ottaway, Richard
Mr. Stephen Day.

Question accordingly agreed to

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions)(No. 2) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 109.

Division No. 260]
[12.5 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Berry, Roger


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Best, Harold


Ainger, Nick
Betts, Clive


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Blackman, Liz


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Blears, Ms Hazel


Atherton, Ms Candy
Blizzard, Bob


Atkins, Charlotte
Borrow, David


Barnes, Harry
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Barron, Kevin
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Battle, John
Bradshaw, Ben


Bayley, Hugh
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Beard, Nigel
Browne, Desmond


Begg, Miss Anne
Buck, Ms Karen


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Burden, Richard


Bennett, Andrew F
Burnett, John






Butler, Mrs Christine
Hancock, Mike


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Hanson, David



Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Healey, John


Cann, Jamie
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Casale, Roger
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Chaytor, David
Hepburn, Stephen


Chisholm, Malcolm
Heppell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hesford, Stephen


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hill, Keith


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hopkins, Kelvin



Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Clwyd, Ann
Humble, Mrs Joan


Coaker, Vernon
Hurst, Alan


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hutton, John


Cohen, Harry
Iddon, Dr Brian


Coleman, Iain
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Colman, Tony
Jenkins, Brian


Connarty, Michael
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Corston, Jean
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cotter, Brian
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cousins, Jim



Cox, Tom
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Crausby, David
Keeble, Ms Sally


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dalyell, Tam
Kidney, David


Darvill, Keith
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Davidson, Ian
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Lammy, David



Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Dawson, Hilton
Laxton, Bob


Dean, Mrs Janet
Lepper, David


Denham, John
Leslie, Christopher


Dobbin, Jim
Levitt, Tom


Donohoe, Brian H
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Doran, Frank
Linton, Martin


Dowd, Jim
Livsey, Richard


Drew, David
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lock, David


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Love, Andrew


Edwards, Huw
McAvoy, Thomas


Efford, Clive
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McDonagh, Siobhain


Etherington, Bill
Macdonald, Calum


Fisher, Mark
McDonnell, John


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
McFall, John


Flynn, Paul
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McIsaac, Shona


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Foulkes, George
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fyfe, Maria
McNamara, Kevin


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McNulty, Tony


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
MacShane, Denis


Gerrard, Neil
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gibson, Dr Ian
McWalter, Tony


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McWilliam, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Godsiff, Roger
Mallaber, Judy


Goggins, Paul
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Martlew, Eric


Hain, Peter
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Meale, Alan


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Merron, Gillian


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun





Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Soley, Clive


Miller, Andrew
Southworth, Ms Helen


Moffatt, Laura
Spellar, John


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moran, Ms Margaret
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Steinberg, Gerry


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stevenson, George


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)



Stinchcombe, Paul


Mountford, Kali
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mudie, George
Stringer, Graham


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stunell, Andrew


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Norris, Dan
Swinney, John


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Olner, Bill



Öpik, Lembit
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pearson, Ian
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pickthall, Colin
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Pike, Peter L
Timms, Stephen


Plaskitt, James
Todd, Mark


Pond, Chris
Touhig, Don


Pope, Greg
Trickett, Jon


Pound, Stephen
Truswell, Paul


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Quinn, Lawrie
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rapson, Syd
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Raynsford, Nick
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rendel, David
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Tynan, Bill


Rooney, Terry
Vis, Dr Rudi


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Walley, Ms Joan


Rowlands, Ted
Ward, Ms Claire


Roy, Frank
Wareing, Robert N


Ruane, Chris
Watts, David


Ruddock, Joan
Webb, Steve


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Welsh, Andrew


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
White, Brian


Salter, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sanders, Adrian



Sarwar, Mohammad
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sawford, Phil
Wood, Mike


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Woolas, Phil


Skinner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wray, James


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)



Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Snape, Peter
Mr. David Jamieson.


NOES


Amess, David
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James



Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Clappison, James


Baldry, Tony
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Beggs, Roy



Bercow, John
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Beresford, Sir Paul
Collins, Tim


Blunt, Crispin
Cran, James


Boswell, Tim
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Brady, Graham
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evans, Nigel


Burns, Simon
Fabricant, Michael


Butterfill, John
Fallon, Michael


Cash, William
Flight, Howard






Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Prior, David


Fraser, Christopher
Randall, John


Gale, Roger
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Garnier, Edward
Robathan, Andrew


Gibb, Nick
Robertson, Laurence


Gill, Christopher
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Gray, James
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Green, Damian
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Greenway, John
Ruffley, David


Grieve, Dominic
St Aubyn, Nick


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hammond, Philip
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hawkins, Nick
Soames, Nicholas


Hayes, John
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Spring, Richard


Horam John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Steen, Anthony


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Key, Robert
Syms, Robert


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lansley, Andrew
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Leigh, Edward
Townend, John


Letwin, Oliver
Tredinnick, David


Lidington, David
Trend, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tyrie, Andrew


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Viggers, Peter


Loughton, Tim
Waterson, Nigel


Luff, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Whitney, Sir Raymond


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Whittingdale, John


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Wilkinson, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Moss, Malcolm
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Nicholls, Patrick
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)



Paice, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. Peter Atkinson and



Mr. Stephen Day.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

That the draft Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]

The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 109.

Division No. 261]
[12.18 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Blizzard, Bob


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Borrow, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Atkins, Charlotte
Bradshaw, Ben


Barnes, Harry
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Barron, Kevin
Browne, Desmond


Battle, John
Buck, Ms Karen


Bayley, Hugh
Burden, Richard


Beard, Nigel
Burnett, John


Begg, Miss Anne
Butler, Mrs Christine


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Bennett, Andrew F



Berry, Roger
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Best, Harold
Cann, Jamie


Betts, Clive
Casale, Roger


Blackman, Liz
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Chaytor, David





Chisholm, Malcolm
Heppell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hesford, Stephen


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hill, Keith


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hope, Phil



Hopkins, Kelvin


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Clwyd, Ann
Humble, Mrs Joan


Coaker, Vernon
Hurst, Alan


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hutton, John


Cohen, Harry
Iddon, Dr Brian


Coleman, Iain
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Colman, Tony
Jenkins, Brian


Connarty, Michael
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Corston, Jean
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cotter, Brian
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cousins, Jim



Cox, Tom
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Crausby, David
Keeble, Ms Sally


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Kemp, Fraser


Dalyell, Tam
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Darvill, Keith
Kidney, David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Davidson, Ian
Kirkwood, Archy


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Kumar, Dr Ashok



Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Dawson, Hilton
Lammy, David


Dean, Mrs Janet
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Denham, John
Laxton, Bob


Dobbin, Jim
Lepper, David


Donohoe, Brian H
Leslie, Christopher


Doran, Frank
Levitt, Tom


Dowd, Jim
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Drew, David
Linton, Martin


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Livsey, Richard


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Edwards, Huw
Lock, David


Efford, Clive
Love, Andrew


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McAvoy, Thomas


Etherington, Bill
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Fisher, Mark
McDonagh, Siobhain


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Macdonald, Calum


Flynn, Paul
McDonnell, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
McFall, John


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McIsaac, Shona


Foulkes, George
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Fyfe, Maria
Mackinlay, Andrew


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McNamara, Kevin


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McNulty, Tony


Gerrard, Neil
MacShane, Denis


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McWalter, Tony


Godman, Dr Norman A
McWilliam, John


Godsiff, Roger
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Goggins, Paul
Mallaber, Judy


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hain, Peter
Meale, Alan


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Merron, Gillian


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hancock, Mike
Miller, Andrew


Hanson, David
Moffatt, Laura


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Healey, John
Moran, Ms Margaret


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hepburn, Stephen
Mountford, Kali






Mudie, George
Stevenson, George


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stinchcombe, Paul


Norris, Dan
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stringer, Graham


Olner, Bill
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Öpik, Lembit
Stunell, Andrew


Organ, Mrs Diana
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Swinney, John


Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pearson, Ian



Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pike, Peter L
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Plaskitt, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pond, Chris
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pope, Greg
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pound, Stephen
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Timms, Stephen


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Todd, Mark


Quinn, Lawrie
Touhig, Don


Rapson, Syd
Trickett, Jon


Raynsford, Nick
Truswell, Paul


Rendel, David
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Rowlands, Ted
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Roy, Frank
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ruane, Chris
Tynan, Bill


Ruddock, Joan
Vis, Dr Rudi


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Walley, Ms Joan


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Ward, Ms Claire


Salter, Martin
Wareing, Robert N


Sanders, Adrian
Watts, David


Sarwar, Mohammad
Webb, Steve


Sawford, Phil
Welsh, Andrew


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
White, Brian


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)



Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Wood, Mike


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wray, James


Soley, Clive
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Spellar, John



Squire, Ms Rachel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Mr. David Jamieson and


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


NOES


Amess, David
Collins, Tim


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Cran, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Beggs, Roy
Day, Stephen


Bercow, John
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Blunt, Crispin
Duncan Smith, Iain


Boswell, Tim
Evans, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fabricant, Michael


Brady, Graham
Fallon, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Flight, Howard


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Burns, Simon
Fox, Dr Liam


Butterfill, John
Fraser, Christopher


Cash, William
Gale, Roger


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Garnier, Edward



Gibb, Nick


Chope, Christopher
Gill, Christopher


Clappison, James
Gray, James


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Green, Damian



Greenway, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Grieve, Dominic





Gummer, Rt Hon John
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Hammond, Philip
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hawkins, Nick
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Hayes, John
Ruffley, David


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
St Aubyn, Nick


Horam, John
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Spring, Richard


Key, Robert
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Steen, Anthony


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Swayne, Desmond


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Syms, Robert


Lansley, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Leigh, Edward
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Letwin, Oliver
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lidington, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Townend, John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tredinnick, David


Loughton, Tim
Trend, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tyrie, Andrew


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Waterson, Nigel


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Wells, Bowen


McLoughlin, Patrick
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Moss, Malcolm
Whittingdale, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Wilkinson, John


Ottaway, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Paice, James
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Prior, David



Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Noes:


Robathan, Andrew
Mr. Keith Simpson and


Robertson, Laurence
Mr. Peter Luff.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (ENGLAND)

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No.63) on the Invest to Save Grant (HC 538), which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]

The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 128.

Division No. 262]
[12.31 am


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Burden, Richard


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Butler, Mrs Christine


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cann, Jamie


Atkins, Charlotte
Casale, Roger


Barnes, Harry
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Barron, Kevin
Chaytor, David


Battle, John
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bayley, Hugh
Clapham, Michael


Begg, Miss Anne
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bennett, Andrew F



Berry, Roger
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Best, Harold
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Betts, Clive
Clelland, David


Blackman, Liz
Clwyd, Ann


Blears, Ms Hazel
Coaker, Vernon


Blizzard, Bob
Coffey, Ms Ann


Borrow, David
Cohen, Harry


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Coleman, Iain


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Colman, Tony


Bradshaw, Ben
Connarty, Michael


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Browne, Desmond
Corston, Jean


Buck, Ms Karen
Cousins, Jim






Cox, Tom
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Crausby, David
Laxton, Bob


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Lepper, David


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Leslie, Christopher


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Levitt, Tom


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Darvill, Keith
Linton, Martin


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Davidson, Ian
Lock, David


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Love, Andrew



McAvoy, Thomas


Dawson, Hilton
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Dean, Mrs Janet
Macdonald, Calum


Denham, John
McDonnell, John


Dobbin, Jim
McFall, John


Donohoe, Brian H
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Doran, Frank
McIssac, Shona


Dowd, Jim
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Drew, David
Mackinlay, Andrew


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McNamara, Kevin


Edwards, Huw
McNulty, Tony


Efford, Clive
MacShane, Denis


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Mactaggart, Fiona


Etherington, Bill
McWalter, Tony


Fisher, Mark
McWilliam, John


Flynn, Paul
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Mallaber, Judy


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Fyfe, Maria
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Gerrard, Neil
Martlew, Eric


Gibson, Dr Ian
Meale, Alan


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Merron, Gillian


Godman, Dr Norman A
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Godsiff, Roger
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Goggins, Paul
Miller, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
Moffatt, Laura


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hain, Peter
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mountford, Kali


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mudie, George


Hanson, David
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Healey, John
Norris, Dan


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hepburn, Stephen
Olner, Bill


Heppell, John
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hesford, Stephen
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hill, Keith
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hope, Phil
Pearson, Ian


Hopkins, Kelvin
Pickthall, Colin


Hoyle, Lindsay
Pike, Peter L


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Plaskitt, James


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pond, Chris


Hurst, Alan
Pope, Greg


Hutton, John
Pound, Stephen


Iddon, Dr Brian
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jenkins, Brian
Quinn, Lawrie


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Rapson, Syd


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Roche, Mrs Barbara



Rooney, Terry


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Rowlands, Ted


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Roy, Frank


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Ruane, Chris


Kemp, Fraser
Ruddock, Joan


Kidney, David
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sarwar, Mohammad


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Sawford, Phil


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Skinner, Dennis


Lammy, David
Smith, Angela (Basildon)





Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Trickett, Jon



Truswell, Paul


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Soley, Clive
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Spellar, John
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Tynan, Bill


Steinberg, Gerry
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stevenson, George
Walley, Ms Joan


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Ward, Ms Claire


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wareing, Robert N


Stoate, Dr Howard
Watts, David


Stringer, Graham
Welsh, Andrew


Stuart, Ms Gisela
White, Brain


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Swinney, John



Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Wood, Mike


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Woolas, Phil


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Worthington, Tony


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wray, James


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)



Todd, Mark
Tellers for the Ayes:


Touhig, Don
Mr. David Jamieson and



Mr. Mike Hall.


NOES


Amess, David
Garnier, Edward


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Gibb, Nick


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gill, Christopher


Beggs, Roy
Gray, James


Bercow, John
Green, Damian


Beresford, Sir Paul
Greenway, John


Blunt, Crispin
Grieve, Dominic


Boswell, Tim
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hammond, Philip


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hancock, Mike


Brady, Graham
Hawkins, Nick


Brazier, Julian
Hayes, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Burnett, John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Burns, Simon
Horam, John


Butterfill, John
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)



Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Cash, William
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Key, Robert



King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Chope, Christopher
Kirkwood, Archy


Clappison, James
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui



Lansley, Andrew


Collins, Tim
Leigh, Edward


Cotter, Brian
Letwin, Oliver


Cran, James
Lidington, David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Livsey, Richard


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Day, Stephen
Loughton, Tim


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Duncan Smith, Iain
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Evans, Nigel
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fabricant, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Flight, Howard
Nicholls, Patrick


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Öpik, Lembit


Fox, Dr Liam
Ottaway, Richard


Fraser, Christopher
Paice, James


Gale, Roger
Paisley, Rev Ian






Prior, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Rendel, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Robathan, Andrew
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Robertson, Laurence
Townend, John


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Tredinnick, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Trend, Michael


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Tyrie, Andrew


Ruffley, David
Viggers, Peter


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Waterson, Nigel


St Aubyn, Nick
Webb, Steve


Sanders, Adrian
Wells, Bowen


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Whittingdale, John


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Spicer, Sir Michael
Wilkinson, John


Spring, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Steen, Anthony
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stunell, Andrew



Swayne, Desmond
Tellers for the Noes:


Syms, Robert
Mr. Peter Luff and


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation)

EDUCATION

That the draft Education (School Government) (Terms of Reference) (England) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 129.

Division No. 263]
[12.45 am


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)



Atherton, Ms Candy
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Barnes, Harry
Clelland, David


Barron, Kevin
Clwyd, Ann


Battle, John
Coaker, Vernon


Bayley, Hugh
Coffey, Ms Ann


Begg, Miss Anne
Cohen, Harry


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Coleman, Iain


Bennett, Andrew F
Colman, Tony


Berry, Roger
Connarty, Michael


Best, Harold
Corbyn, Jeremy


Betts, Clive
Corston, Jean


Blackman, Liz
Cousins, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cox, Tom


Blizzard, Bob
Crausby, David


Borrow, David
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradshaw, Ben
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Darvill, Keith


Browne, Desmond
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Buck, Ms Karen
Davidson, Ian


Burden, Richard
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Butler, Mrs Christine



Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dawson, Hilton


Cann, Jamie
Dean, Mrs Janet


Casale, Roger
Denham, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Dobbin, Jim


Chaytor, David
Donohoe, Brian H


Chisholm, Malcolm
Doran, Frank


Clapham, Michael
Dowd, Jim


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Drew, David





Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Edwards, Huw
Mallaber, Judy


Efford, Clive
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Etherington, Bill
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fisher, Mark
Martlew, Eric


Flynn, Paul
Meale, Alan


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Merron, Gillian


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Fyfe, Maria
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Miller, Andrew


Gerrard, Neil
Moffatt, Laura


Gibson, Dr Ian
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Moran, Ms Margaret


Godman, Dr Norman A
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Godsiff, Roger
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Goggins, Paul
Mountford, Kali


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mudie, George


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Norris, Dan


Hain, Peter
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Olner, Bill


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hanson, David
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Palmer, Dr Nick


Healey, John
Pearson, Ian


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Pickthall, Colin


Hepburn, Stephen
Pike, Peter L


Heppell, John
Pond, Chris


Hope, Phil
Pope, Greg


Hopkins, Kelvin
Pound, Stephen


Hoyle, Lindsay
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Purchase, Ken


Hurst, Alan
Quinn, Lawrie


Iddon, Dr Brian
Rapson, Syd


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Rooney, Terry


Jenkins, Brian
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Roy, Frank


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Ruane, Chris



Ruddock, Joan


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Sarwar, Mohammad


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Sawford, Phil


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Kemp, Fraser
Skinner, Dennis


Kidney, David
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Kumar, Dr Ashok



Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Lammy, David
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Soley, Clive


Laxton, Bob
Southworth, Ms Helen


Lepper, David
Squire, Ms Rachel


Leslie, Christopher
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Linton, Martin
Stevenson, George


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Love, Andrew
Stinchcombe, Paul


McAvoy, Thomas
Stoate, Dr Howard


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Stringer, Graham


Macdonald, Calum
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McDonnell, John
Swinney, John


McFall, John
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McGuire, Mrs Anne



McIsaac, Shona
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mackinlay, Andrew
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


McNulty, Tony
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


MacShane, Denis
Todd, Mark


Mactaggart, Fiona
Touhig, Don


McWalter, Tony
Trickett, Jon


McWilliam, John
Truswell, Paul






Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
White, Brian


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)



Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wood, Mike


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Woolas, Phil


Tynan, Bill
Worthington, Tony


Vis, Dr Rudi
Wray, James


Walley, Ms Joan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Ward, Ms Claire
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Wareing, Robert N



Watts, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Welsh, Andrew
Mr. David Jamieson and



Mr. Mike Hall.


NOES


Amess, David
Horam, John


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Beggs, Roy
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Bercow, John
Key, Robert


Beresford, Sir Paul
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Blunt, Crispin
Kirkwood, Archy


Boswell, Tim
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Lansley, Andrew


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Leigh, Edward


Brady, Graham
Letwin, Oliver


Brazier, Julian
Lidington, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Burnett, John
Livsey, Richard


Burns, Simon
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Butterfill, John
Loughton, Tim


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Luff, Peter



Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Cash, William
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
McIntosh, Miss Anne



Maclean, Rt Hon David


Chope, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clappison, James
Moss, Malcolm


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Nicholls, Patrick



O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Collins, Tim
Öpik, Lembit


Cotter, Brian
Ottaway, Richard


Cran, James
Paice, James


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Prior, David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
Rendel, David


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Robathan, Andrew


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Robertson, Laurence


Duncan Smith, Iain
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Evans, Nigel
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fabricant, Michael
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Fallon, Michael
Ruffley, David


Flight, Howard
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
St Aubyn, Nick


Foster, Don (Bath)
Sanders, Adrian


Fox, Dr Liam
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Fraser, Christopher
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gale, Roger
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Garnier, Edward
Spicer, Sir Michael


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Spring, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gill, Christopher
Steen, Anthony


Gray, James
Stunell, Andrew


Green, Damian
Swayne, Desmond


Greenway, John
Syms, Robert


Grieve, Dominic
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hancock, Mike
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hayes, John
Townend, John


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tredinnick, David


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Trend, Michael





Tyrie, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Waterson, Nigel
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Webb, Steve
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wells, Bowen



Whitney, Sir Raymond
Tellers for the Noes:


Whittingdale, John
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

DATA PROTECTION

Motion made,

That the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to the salary of the Data Protection Registrar shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION

United Christian Broadcasters

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I am delighted to be able to present a petition on behalf of 1,167 residents of the Lagan valley and surrounding areas. The collection of signatures has been co-ordinated by Ruby Hutchinson on behalf of United Christian Broadcasters.
The petition states:
The Humble Petition of the Residents of Lagan Valley and surrounding areas sheweth
That United Christian Broadcasters and groups like it are banned by law from applying for many types of broadcasting licence. This applies to both television and radio, and relegates religious broadcasting to the very limited opportunities provided by local radio, satellite and cable broadcasting. The legislation entrenches a suspicion of religious groups that is unjustified and unfair, and it impugns the religious basis on which they are founded.
The Petition also addresses the broadcasting codes for television and radio, which again single out religious groups for special restrictions. It is not right that secular groups should have freedom of expression, which is denied to faith-based groups.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to bring forward proposals to amend the legislation to remove discrimination against the ownership of broadcasting licences by religious bodies, and to require the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority to amend their rules and codes of guidance to remove provisions that discriminate in wording or in practice against religious bodies.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Defence Evaluation and Research Agency

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Sir Michael Spicer: Nowadays I always make it a practice to declare an interest as president of the Association of Electricity Producers, in case there is a read-across from defence to electricity. I also declare that the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. Malvern is in my constituency. Although I do not intend to refer specifically to that establishment, it is fair to say that the Government's proposals have alarmed my constituents and made them unsure of their future. I do not want to make that case tonight, but I cannot resist reminding the Minister that only this Monday an exhibition opened in Malvern to celebrate its heritage as the home of radar, which was arguably the most important technical development of the second world war.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), who represents DERA Fort Halstead, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who represents DERA headquarters at Farnborough, are present. I am also pleased to see such a heavy contingent of shadow Cabinet Ministers and deputy Ministers on our Front Bench.
An independent state has two primary functions: to protect its citizens from the threat of internal anarchy, through the rule of law, and to provide them with adequate defence from any threat of foreign or terrorist aggression. In circumstances in which adequate defence is as dependent as it is today on technological developments, it follows that the state must retain its capability to plan, evaluate and monitor the applications of defence technology and to satisfy the needs of its intelligence services. In other words, the state must have its own capability to know what is going on and what is coming up in defence technology. That is what DERA does.
For Britain, there is a particular dimension to the issue. British defence technology is entwined with and highly dependent on technical developments in the United States, even if the successful bilateral co-operation at governmental level with several other countries, notably France, is taken into account. The bond that has been built up between our defence scientists and those of the United States is at the core of Britain's high technology defence system. Britain is undoubtedly the net gainer in that relationship; that is the context in which the Government's proposals for the future of DERA, which were outlined in the consultation document published in April, should be viewed.
The essence of those proposals is that DERA should be split into two parts. The first, comprising some 3,000 people, would be known as retained DERA—or RDERA, to use one of the abbreviations that the military prefer—and kept in the public sector. The second, comprising some 9,000 staff, would be semi-privatised and known as new DERA, or NDERA.
The first problem arises because of the lack of clarity over how the split is to be made. Paragraph 13 of the consultation document, or CD, states:
Work to define precisely the separation of the two organisations will not be complete until the autumn…
My information is that Ministry of Defence officials are finding it more difficult today to decide the criteria for separation than when the consultation paper was published, and it is easy to see why that should be so.
Leaving aside the possibility that elements of pure research or down-the-line development might be hived off to an independent establishment, the main functions of providing advice to the Government and, above all, collaborating with other countries at intergovernmental level, cannot be easily split. Indeed, one questions whether they can be split at all. For that reason, the suspicion grows that the Government, under the guise of phoney privatisation, really propose a cut of some 75 per cent. in the nation's defence evaluation and development capability. Apparently, the job that was done by 12,000 people can now be done just as easily by 3,000.
The consultation paper of course puts that very differently. It talks of new DERA, in new Labour speak, becoming
a globally-branded technology-based knowledge provider in the new economy of the 21st century…a large player among the private or semi-private independent research and technology organisations around the world…
However, if it is to be a truly competitive "knowledge provider", why the need to retain a special share, why the continued MOD control, and why semi-privatise in a half-baked way that will merely distort the existing market for other independent so-called knowledge providers? Therein lies the second cause for confusion.
The Government have apparently given their American counterparts the assurance that new DERA will be a private sector organisation
completely separate from retained DERA and without any favoured status…
By contrast, and totally at variance with that, Sir John Chisholm, DERA's chief executive, has assured members of his staff that the two organisations will be extremely close and will continue to share accommodation and possibly support facilities.
The question of how close the two new organisations will be to each other goes to the heart of the matter, not merely because of the economic impact that the semi-privatisation of DERA will have, but because of the enormous implications for how the proposal will be viewed in the United States. In answer to a question that I put to him on 3 July, the Secretary of State for Defence said:
The hon. Gentleman refers to Anglo-American concerns; I assume that what he really means is anxieties in the United States. If he checks the situation carefully, he will find that the United States is content with the latest proposals, so that criticism does not arise.—[Official Report, 3 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 6–7.]
The Secretary of State was either grossly misinformed on this matter or was being disingenuous. The fact is that there is widespread concern in the United States about the Government's muddled proposals for the future of DERA.
I first became aware of the seriousness of those concerns when I paid a visit to the Pentagon in Washington towards the end of last year. If the Chisholm version of what will happen comes about and the two


DERAs remain very close to each other, it is possible that the Americans will put a complete embargo on relations between British and US defence scientists. That will happen if the word spreads in United States defence circles that if people speak to scientists retained on the Ministry of Defence payroll they would, in the process, pass information to scientists competing for work in the private sector. Even if officials and politicians were prepared to swallow that, it is unimaginable that scientists working for US defence contractors would do so.
A scientist in a US naval laboratory has recently been quoted as saying
Unless technical co-operation programmes rules are changed drastically this split in DERA will certainly decrease the level of collaboration with the UK. Personally I think it will decrease it greatly.… I think there will have to be a general decrease in openness until it is seen that new DERA and retained DERA are indeed separate bodies. Until that happens there will be the fear that government to government information will go to the new DERA improperly. I think we will see a big loss in exchange of information between the US and the UK. And I think it is a shame because the work we have done together has been of great value to us.
The future of Britain's defence technical evaluation and collaborative capability is at stake. This is a serious matter, given the growing importance of high-technology defence. Under the cloak of spin, weasel words and pretended privatisation, the Government have, in effect, proposed a 9,000 personnel cut in the defence budget. They have completely failed to explain the benefits of these proposals to the defence of this country. I hope that they will do so tonight; it is certainly what the Select Committee on Defence has called for.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) on his success in securing the debate, if not on his luck, given the late hour at which it is taking place.
I am probably uniquely well placed to reply to the debate, having represented my party on the Opposition Front Bench on the two most similar privatisations conducted by the last Conservative Government—the privatisation of the British Technology Group, and that of AEA Technology.
On 17 April, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced the start of consultation on our revised proposals for the future of DERA. The formal consultation finished on 9 June, and we are currently examining the many useful and constructive responses received during the process. I emphasise that it was a genuine consultation. We are committed to listening to the views of our stakeholders, not least those of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who work at DERA. I am sure he will recognise the importance of carrying out the process properly, and will agree that we should take time to consider carefully the issues that have been raised.
However, we recognise that uncertainty over the future is potentially unsettling for DERA's staff. We intend to move as quickly as we can. We expect to complete our analysis of the responses to consultation within the next week or so, and we hope to be in a position to make an announcement soon after that.
Our intention to seek a public-private partnership as the way forward for DERA was first announced in the strategic defence review. We believe that the

opportunities presented by that approach will offer a significant boost both to defence research and to science and technology organisations across the United Kingdom. No one in the Ministry of Defence underestimates the range and complexity of the issues that must be addressed if we are to achieve our objectives of unlocking the expertise that exists within DERA, and of maximising commercial exploitation of Government-funded research.
DERA provides a key capability in the United Kingdom, and we are determined to ensure a successful future for the organisation. That is why we have spent the last two and a half years examining the range of options that are available. As I have said, one of the reasons why it has taken so long is the complexity of the subject. There is a wide range of stakeholders, all with specific and often differing views and interests. In the face of such complexity, it is important that we fully explore the key issues. We must get them right if we are to ensure a successful future for the organisation.
Let me turn now to why we have chosen the public-private partnership as the way forward for DERA. The pace at which new innovations in technology are identified and applied is increasing rapidly, both in government and in industry. The civil sector is investing increasingly in areas of research that are also relevant to defence, and we need to find new ways to take advantage of that. Scientific expertise in areas that used to be largely the preserve of the public sector has now spread across government, industry and academia. We need to be more agile and innovative in creating partnerships that allow access to the best technology, wherever it may be.
DERA itself was created as a result of significant changes, which included the need to respond to new demands from its customers following the end of the cold war. Its management and staff can be justly proud of their achievements since the agency was formed. However, if DERA is to continue to thrive, it must be capable of responding to the environment in which it will have to operate over the coming decades. That includes the need to face challenges resulting from wider changes in the procurement of military equipment, including those resulting from the Government's strategic defence review.
DERA's direct funding from the Ministry of Defence—about half being from research—has declined significantly over the last 10 years. That is not because we do not rate highly the value of the science and technology that DERA produces. It largely reflects the transfer of risk in procurement from Government to prime contractors.
Even if unlimited money were available, the way in which to address the impact of the decline in DERA funding would not be simply to call for extra spending. That would ignore the other external challenges facing DERA. The answer is to find a way of allowing DERA to exploit its treasure trove of knowledge and ideas to the benefit of a wider market than its traditional defence customers. That idea is not only good for DERA; it is good for the MOD. It ensures that DERA becomes fully involved in the wider defence science and technology base, and so brings a broader expertise to its core customers' problems. It is also good for the United Kingdom as a whole, because it means that DERA will be able to make a growing contribution to the country's economic activity.
Initially, we believed that it would be possible to place the bulk of DERA in the private sector operating as a plc, but constrained to ensure that the UK's and our international partners' security interests were properly protected. Following extensive and, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept, genuine consultation on the proposal last summer, it became apparent that there was strong disquiet among a number of stakeholders, not least our international allies.
We looked at two possible ways around that problem. The first involved setting up virtually the whole of DERA as an independent publicly owned corporation—IPOC for short; in the MOD, we are very fond of abbreviations—with Government remaining as the majority owner. The second approach would see about three quarters of DERA's staff extracted to form a company that would transfer to the private sector with a core group of staff retained within the MOD for strategic reasons.
We conclude that the first option would simply not work. Although DERA would remain in the public sector, its staff would no longer be civil servants and would be working in a company with obligations to external shareholders. That would give insufficient protection to the MOD in terms of sensitive programmes, collaboration with foreign laboratories, and in those areas requiring the highest level of impartiality.
Other stakeholder concerns about the need for a clear relationship between DERA and the MOD were less well met by that option, and stakeholders felt that a much cleaner separation between the two organisations was required. In particular, international partners, from whom the MOD derives considerable benefit, expressed concerns about their ability to continue the full range of collaborations if that approach were adopted.
We examined an alternative approach, which would have created an IPOC in which employees were the main shareholders. However, that offered little benefit over the current trading fund. We have, therefore, concentrated on finding a workable solution that will allow us to retain in the MOD the most sensitive areas of activity from DERA. That will allow those elements of work that do not need to be within government to be transformed into a company in the private sector in a way that ensures their continuation as a prosperous, growing force for national economic good.
Based on that analysis, we have identified a preferred approach known as "core competence". That would lead to a clear separation of the two parts of DERA. The element to be retained in the MOD would include the chemical and biological defence sector at Porton Down and the majority of the Centre For Defence Analysis, as well as a number of teams and individuals involved in either sensitive projects or top-level systems research. Final decisions have not yet been made, but we expect the number of staff within the retained elements to be fewer than 3,000.
The elements retained in the MOD would provide a high-level overview across the whole spectrum of science and technology currently addressed by DERA. That would ensure that the MOD had an impartial source of advice and system research capability to provide high-level assessment, integration and management of its

research programme and international research collaboration. That capability would be focused on those activities that must be carried out within government.
The remainder of DERA, about 9,000 staff, would continue to be a major supplier of science and technology to the MOD, but have the necessary commercial freedoms to develop its business for a wider range of customers, in the defence and civil areas. Indeed, we would expect that organisation, which has been referred to as new DERA in the consultation document, to become a globally branded, technology-based knowledge provider in the new economy of the 21st century. That vision is based on the synergy that would exist between its core research and technology work for the MOD and the exploitation of that technology into broader markets.
The nature of the relationship between new DERA and the rest of the MOD, including the retained element of the current DERA, has been the subject of much ill informed and potentially damaging speculation. Our proposals in the consultation document explicitly state that new DERA would be a private sector organisation with a clear separation from the MOD.
Although the MOD might initially retain a financial stake in new DERA, the sole purpose of that would be to ensure that the taxpayer obtained a share of any immediate benefit resulting from new DERA's additional freedoms in the private sector. Our aim would be to sell the MOD's stake as soon as it is financially sensible to do so.
We fully recognise that new DERA will be a critical supplier to the MOD. It will contain many capabilities and facilities of great importance to its defence customers, and it is likely to continue to be our largest source of scientific and technical advice into the foreseeable future. However, that does not imply that the relationship between MOD and new DERA will, in principle, need to be different from that which exists with other private sector organisations.
Stakeholders, particularly industry and our collaborative partners, have indicated strongly that they want to be clear whether the people with whom they deal are in the private sector or the public sector. It is also clear that there would be a fundamental contradiction between allowing new DERA the commercial freedoms necessary to operate successfully in the private sector and, at the same time, allowing it to have a privileged relationship with the MOD.
The realisation of that vision for new DERA is dependent to some extent on how it is placed in the private sector. The most sensitive activities are to be retained by the MOD, which will allow us to minimise the constraints under which new DERA can operate. That will, in turn, create an environment that permits the fullest exploitation of its potential.
New DERA will still have broadly the same range of capabilities and skills as at present. Consequently, we are able first of all to contemplate its incorporation as a plc. That could be followed fairly swiftly by a flotation, as soon as DERA had reached a suitable stage of development, possibly in 2001.

Sir Michael Spicer: The Minister mentioned the special share, which he said would be only a temporary measure to ensure that finances were properly sorted out and that any benefits went to the taxpayer. However, the


special share is given much greater emphasis in the consultation document than the Minister implied. The document states:
MOD would, through its special share, retain the right to approve Directors on security grounds…
Through the special share, Mod would retain the right to revert certain, named strategic assets to public ownership under exceptional circumstance.
The document details a whole list of considerations that have nothing to do with the innocent explanations given today by the Minister, but everything to do with keeping DERA in the semi-public sector—which will create not only distortions, but great concerns for our United States allies. I hope that he will deal with that matter, which was a very important aspect of my speech.

Dr. Moonie: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. As the previous Government—and I, as an Opposition Front Bencher—learned very well in the other privatisations, special shares are difficult to operate in practice. Particularly in the case of AEA Technology, however, special shares operated perfectly adequately. Special shares are intended to be a means of facilitating the transition from the public sector to the private sector, to give the organisation time to bed in and to ensure that the Government's interests are properly protected. I am quite happy to examine the issue that he has raised and to write to him more fully—whereupon I hope that I shall be able fully to alleviate his concerns.
Special shares have to be constructed quite carefully, but I see no difficulty in doing that. That has been done very frequently in the past, although, I accept, with varying success. In the best circumstances, and certainly in the short term, special shares have worked very well in protecting the Government's interests.
There has also certainly been debate in Europe on the validity of special shares. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that discussions have already been held with the European Commission on the special share, and that there has been no indication that they are regarded as unacceptable. Although we would obviously explore the issues in more detail following any decision by Ministers, the provision of such shares has been effectively enforced in the past. Quite honestly, I think that they could be enforced perfectly adequately for new DERA.
I accept that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the matter, but I think that his concerns are unfounded, and that there has been adequate experience in the operation of special shares to allow us to do it adequately in this case.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: What would happen once the assets were transferred to new DERA? Recently, at the DERA establishment at West Freugh, in Wigtownshire, live cluster bombs were dropped in Luce bay. I believe that the

West Freugh establishment is destined to be transferred to new DERA. Once DERA is transferred to the private sector, who would undertake the continuing responsibility for looking after ordnance that has been dropped and will be cemented in Luce bay?

Dr. Moonie: That is a good point. The matter is part of my responsibilities but, frankly, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an adequate answer at present. I will be happy to write to him to explain the position more fully. It would be improper of me to give him an off-the-cuff answer that might well be, at best, a half truth. I will certainly look into the matter and write to him about it.
In conclusion, as the time is marching on, the proposals put forward in April represent an imaginative way ahead.

Sir Michael Spicer: I am sorry, but I must press the Minister on relations with America. Do these proposals meet with the approval of the Americans? That is central to the issue that I was trying to raise.

Dr. Moonie: The hon. Gentleman is right. As far as the Ministry of Defence is aware, our proposals meet the concerns of our partners. They have been discussed with them—that includes the United States.
The MOD will be able to form effective partnerships in the future, to draw on the best scientific capability from the public sector, the private sector, academic interests and our international allies. New DERA, along with the rest of industry, will be a key part of those partnerships, but it will also provide wider benefits to the United Kingdom by spinning out new technology to be exploited commercially and to contribute to wealth creation in the UK. Those partnerships offer the best way forward for the organisation, they give us the best of both worlds and I certainly think that they will be a success.

Sir Michael Spicer: The Minister must give some evidence about the American relationship. All the evidence that I have produced and that has come through from America—both anecdotally and from people coming back from DERA—shows that at desk level there is serious concern about the massively important issue of co-operation on technology and about scientists getting together. The Government cannot blandly state that the Americans are happy. The Minister must give some further indication—some evidence.

Dr. Moonie: It is not normal for a Minister to have to give an assurance that the information that he is giving is truthful. On this occasion, that is exactly what I am saying. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to reply more fully, I will do so, but I do not have time tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past One o'clock.